A Collision of Values
The border crisis is no longer about the border crisis. It hasn’t been for a long time. The border crisis is now about the Republicans vs. Democrats—liberals vs. conservatives. The time has long passed since either was concerned about reaching a just settlement of the issue. Both sides just want to win the fight.
In my limited observation, the
crisis (liberal/conservative winner/loser notwithstanding) has two primary
conflicting values. The first value is the disruption of established “domestic
tranquility.” The mass influx of human bodies is overwhelming the existing
system’s ability to assimilate them with justice and compassion. That flood of
humanity creates a threat to the stability and, to a significant degree, the
security of those who are in the path of the flood and/or who deal directly with
the challenge. The border states obviously bear the brunt of that challenge,
and many believe the Democrats/liberals have not demonstrated satisfactory
empathy or willingness to participate in a solution that can adequately serve
all parties.
It is true that several Democratic
initiatives and at least one significant bi-partisan bill would have made some
progress toward a just solution, but all were voted down by a Republican
majority in the House. Still the image remains that Democrats care more about
the immigrants than about established American citizens and infrastructure. The image is "open borders," no control, no accountability, free-for-all.
The other value is humanitarian. The
dismissive generalization is that the immigrants are thieves, murderers, human
traffickers, and drug dealers. Obviously, there are some of all those
categories in any significant human population, and some of them are in
positions of leadership and influence. But the immense majority of border
immigrants appear to be desperate people fleeing circumstances of brutal
injustice and an absence of opportunity to better their impoverished lives. Many
believe Republicans/conservatives have not demonstrated significant empathy or
willingness to participate in a solution that can adequately serve all parties;
indeed, earlier official responses from conservative leadership treated the
immigrants worse than herding animals.
The image is of brutal, arbitrary closing of the border under the assumption that all immigration is illegal and criminal.
Rather than casting aspersions on
any party, I have not found, in my limited exposure, any redeeming qualities in
the strategic approach of any of the partisan approaches, even when their
proposals had merit. Again, I see no evidence from either side that anybody
really wants to resolve the issue with justice and compassion. Everybody just
wants to win the fight and inflict their own sectarian and partisan values on
everybody else. My-way-or-the-highway. All-or-nothing.
Y’all, we’re better than that!
I don’t know what the “right”
solution is because I don’t know enough of the truth about the problem and,
sadly, I don’t trust most sources of information for the truth. Nevertheless, I
don’t believe in problems with no solutions, if the problems are addressed and
defined in terms of need, rather than in terms of desire, preference, or
winning the fight. The “right” solution may not be totally acceptable to any of
the participants; but if it meets the identified needs of all parties, it will
work. And sometimes the solution may have to develop through several stages. We
begin with crawling, then advance to baby steps before we walk and run. But it
can be done.
But no problem or conflict will
find resolution unless all involved parties truly want to resolve the issue
rather than simply win the fight.
That’s the way it looks through the
Flawed Glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim
Comments
Post a Comment