A Day in Wilmington

This morning, mostly on bike lanes and busy roads with wide, smooth shoulders, we rode to Springer Middle School. There was a good vibe as soon as we entered the building. The students seemed happy to be there.

20120423-133000.jpg

Jeffrey spoke to students from two 6th grade and two 8th grade classes. Their teacher, Mr. Glazier, has exposed them to controversial ideas, so the students weren’t surprised or offended to hear reasoned criticism of our country’s immigration policies. They saw the parallels between the bullying of peers (a big topic in today’s schools) and the hardships inflicted by law on those deemed to be Outsiders. Several asked insightful questions, such as about the role religion should play in public policy. (To that, Jeffrey answered that religion is one of the forces that influence a legislator, but one must not use the law to inflict personal views on others, and if one cites Scripture to justify oneself, there is no excuse to flout the Good Books’ bans on mistreatment of foreigners.) The teacher presented Jeffrey with a yellow (matches the Lightning!) school shirt quoting Ghandi: “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” And I was a big hit. One student guessed that I am not Australian, but Asian (she said Chinese and I’m Korean, but it was a good guess).

20120423-134405.jpg

20120423-134808.jpg

20120423-134946.jpg

This evening, Jeffrey spoke to a group of about 35 at the Siegel JCC of Delaware. The title of his talk: “U.S. Immigration: Sweet Philosophy, Sour Myth, Bitter Reality”. He discussed the noble ideals of the Declaration of Independence (America’s founding document), how hypocrisy and ignorance distort those ideals, and the real workings of the system that results. Audience questions concerned, among other things, the DREAM Act, industrial and academic efforts to attract the world’s best scientists, whether the immigration system does anything well, and possible reforms.

20120423-231308.jpg

Below you see me, Jeffrey, and Jeffrey’s Wilmington cousins (whose extended local family numbers 15). You have seen Bradford’s professional photos of President Obama and Vice President Biden. You have read Joel’s essays on The Beatles. You have seen Richard’s TV broadcasts from Delaware Park. We’re happy to count these men and their families as enthusiastic supporters of the Ride for Human Rights.

20120423-231831.jpg

Tomorrow, as the rain abates, we head southwest.

Antebellum Echo

Joey, a colorblind admirer of Lincoln's eloquence.

“There’s something cursed, it seems to me, about a country where men have owned men as property.  The stink of that corruption never escapes the soul, and it is the stink of future evil.” ­– Investigating Magistrate Bibikov, in Bernard Malamud’s 1966 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, The Fixer.

Soon we will bicycle south into Virginia and Tennessee.  Only two lifetimes ago, these states fought a war to defend the right of European immigrants and their descendants to own, as property, African immigrants and their descendants.

Virginia’s Ordinance of Secession referred to federal “oppression of the Southern slaveholding states”.  The governor of Tennessee called for secession to protect the right to own slaves.  Maryland and Delaware, two states on our route, permitted slavery until 1864 and 1865, respectively.  (To be fair, these states had abolitionists too.)

The North also perpetuated slavery.  For example, New York allowed it until 1827; when civil war loomed, New York trading interests favored the South, which In 1860 supplied 75% of the world’s cotton.  Illinois audiences cheered when U.S. Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln said he did not accept racial equality.  Free Iowa had slave-owning residents.

The corruption was everywhere.

Its results were manifold.

Foremost was the horrendous treatment of Africans and their descendants.  America’s fundamental document, the Declaration of Independence, was undermined.  Law and religion were twisted to justify slavery and its brutality.  Slavery led to a war in which about 750,000 men1 in 10 American men of military age – died before their time.  After the war, the abuse of former slaves and their descendants continued legally for 100 years.  Generations of Americans were impoverished by slavery, war, violence, hatred, and Jim Crow laws that crushed and discarded the talents of millions.

All because some Americans treated other Americans as less than fully human.

Today we prohibit (although we haven’t ended) most forms of persecution, and its lesser cousin discrimination, based on race, religion, gender, national origin, etc.  But one group remains outside the community, with its abuse enshrined in American law:  resident foreigners denied a route to authorized status.

They aren’t criminals, or terrorists, or freeloaders.

They are your spouse, sibling, parent, child, schoolmate, co-worker, friend, neighbor, born abroad, living here outside the law because of an invented quota or rule.  They are denied the respect our country gives to criminals and traitors.

Does natural law allow a foreign-born bird to be here but not an innocent self-supporting human?  Does the Bible or Koran let us bankrupt a foreign farmer by stealing her customers with subsidized American corn, then starve her by denying her permission to work here?  Does free market doctrine say that an outstanding foreign worker can’t be hired unless a government agency chooses to give its blessing?

No.  And no.  And no.

In 1858, in the first Lincoln-Douglas debate, Abraham Lincoln expressed the common view that if blacks and whites could not be equal, he (a white man) preferred that whites have the superior position.  But Lincoln continued (emphasis in original):

“… I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the [black man] is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man.  I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects . . .  But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.

In Lincoln’s day and for generations afterward, a European could simply come to America (no visa required) and become a citizen.  Yet under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, African Americans were not and could not become U.S. citizens.  (This changed only when the Constitution was amended after the Civil War.)

Nevertheless, Lincoln acknowledged the right of these non-citizens to earn a living.  He recognized that the Declaration of Independence applied to “all men” – in modern terms, “all persons” – and that “inalienable right[s]” aren’t for Americans alone.

We do not belittle the suffering of America’s slaves and their descendants when we say that the evil that oppressed them continues.  Our federal government hunts down and breaks up American families – innocent children, good honest women and men – because of artificial immigration rules.  Governments in states like Arizona, Georgia, Alabama – and, perish the thought, perhaps Tennessee – want to drive out American families that have foreign-born members, by making the people too miserable to remain.  We treat them as pariahs.

Shame on us for letting this sorry history repeat itself.

Immigration Snapshot: Philosophy

Joey as Philosopher

The Declaration of Independence, properly viewed by Abraham Lincoln as our fundamental document (not the Constitution, which merely implements what the Declaration began), says that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights.  These words reflected the Founding Fathers’ principles.  They violated those principles by not extending equality and rights to (among others) women, slaves, people without property, people of non-European ancestry, and people not of certain Christian sects.  But they never gave up those principles.

As stated in Immigration and Asylum: From 1900 to the present (Matthew J. Gibney, ed.), John Locke, whose philosophy was a basis for what our Founding Fathers wrought, observed that God gave the world “to Mankind in common”.  Immanuel Kant, expounding on this idea in 1795, declared that “all men are entitled to present themselves in the society of others by virtue of their right to communal possession of the earth’s surface.  Since the earth is a globe, they cannot disperse over an infinite area, but must necessarily tolerate one another’s company.  And no-one originally has any greater right than anyone else to occupy any particular portion of the earth.”

Before the philosophers came the Koran and its extension of protection to strangers.  Before the Koran came the Bible, which explicitly states that we must have the same law for the alien and the citizen, and prohibits oppression of foreigners at least 36 times.  Other cultures play the same tune.  Japanese proverb: “Even a hunter cannot kill a bird that comes to him for refuge.”

Do we believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence?  Do we believe in the Declaration’s philosophical underpinnings from the likes of Locke and Kant, and in the Declaration’s “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”?  Do we believe in Holy Writ?

If we believe in any of these things, yet we take part in what passes for immigration enforcement in our country – betraying religion, betraying principle, betraying people, for reasons of money and xenophobia – then we are liars.

In commenting on slavery – a denial of fundamental human rights – Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”  He wrote of how slavery corrupted the young masters: “[T]hus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, [the child] cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities.”

The injustice of slavery bequeathed civil war to the Founders’ grandchildren.

What will be the legacy of our injustice – our denial of fundamental human rights – to foreigners who seek refuge or who live peacefully as our neighbors?