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

Popular posts from this blog

The Elephant in the Room

Tools

Is Our Testimony Attracting people to Christ? or Pushing Them Away?