#853 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Thursday February 8)
“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” –Hillel
Good morning,
IMMIGRATION SHOULD BE EASY
Why are we so at odds regarding immigration? To me, it hardly seems that complicated. There are competing ideas that establish a tension between national self-interest and openness to help “the other” when they are at risk of harm. On the one hand, we need defensible borders. We simply can’t take in everyone who opts to enter the United States, particularly if they become burdens on our social safety net. On the other hand, we are a nation of immigrants and we have a particular moral responsibility, as Americans, to take in those who are oppressed or at risk of physical harm. There was a time when immigration reform seemed within reach. President George W. Bush was organizing a coalition of Republicans and Democrats to tackle this thorny issue when people like Marco Rubio, who helped fashion the bill, pulled out for political reasons. Now, the Republicans in the Senate and the House have killed a bipartisan bill seeking progress on immigration. This is an issue where broad consensus ought to be obtainable, but for the political grandstanding.
THE CURRENT POLITICS
It was heartening to see a bipartisan bill was negotiated by Senate Republicans and Democrats. The bill seemed an almost certain bet to clear the Senate and better than even odds to make it through the House. That was, until the great disruptor, Donald Trump, instructed the lemmings in Congress to vote against the bill. The bill has been nearly universally praised, offering the Republicans nearly everything they wanted. Borders would have been protected humanely and a more strict amnesty program would have been been instituted. Sadly, it proved more important that Republicans not give Biden a “win” (even if that win is a win for our nation), instead keeping immigration as an election year issue. That Ukraine aid was tied to the bill, putting the defense of Europe at risk, all for political gamesmanship.
ON THE SUBSTANCE
Immigration is an issue that hasn’t been adequately addressed for some time. It isn’t enough for Democrats to claim that our borders must be open to everyone or that no more can be done. It is unacceptable for Republicans to say “shut down the border,” regardless of the human cost, and support Trump in separating parents from children. Democrats and Republicans both must buy into a more orderly, humane, and effective system—and sufficient movement was made with the now dead bipartisan proposal. Like the dog that chased the car, the Republicans caught up and got what they wanted, but then didn’t want it. Curiously, this bill benefited Republicans as well, having fallen into the trap of the “Trump wall” as the solution to our immigration problems and countenancing an inhumane process of separating and incarcerating families, without meaningful attempts to provide asylum to those who deserve it. This failed bill offered both sides meaningful concessions on their primary objectives. Neither side got everything it wanted.
THE BEHAVIOR OF THE TRUMP ACOLYTES IS UNFORGIVABLE.
The words of Hillel resonate here. We must be concerned for ourselves and controlling our borders. Yet we cannot only be concerned with ourselves. We must be concerned with the plight of others—for without ideals, what do American values stand for? And after years of talking about some sort of immigration reform, the time is overdue for us to do something. That Trump and his followers are ignoring such a straightforward settlement—which generally accedes to their prior demands—while posting deceptive descriptions of the bill (initially supported by conservative Republicans) is yet another example of abandonment of principle in the pursuit of power.
UKRAINE AND THE U.S.
As for Ukraine, the words of Hillel highlight our responsibility to our fellow men (and women) to support them in times when they are struggling against aggression and oppression. There is a growing call in America for isolationism. That isolationism comes from both the far right and the far left. The Progressive left has been sounding isolationist of late, but they don’t have much power. Today, the more critical opposition comes primarily from the right (or the group that calls itself the right. It remains difficult to fully understand the Trump fascination with Russia but he’s wielding his power to slow and reduce that funding. Putin must be sitting with delight, pondering the return of his friend Donald Trump, which no doubt will countenance further expansion of the Russian empire.
It is easy to believe that the fight of others is not our own. It is easy to believe that we are safer if we stay away from the complexities of world events. History has shown that rarely have isolationism and appeasement ended well. It is possible to be for oneself while not being exclusively for oneself. If we are only for ourselves, what are we?
Have a great day,
Glenn