Immigration and Hospitality - PhillyBlog

peacemover · #1 (**permalink**) 12-24-2004, 02:47 PM

I saw a thoughtful OP-ED piece in the Times today on the topic of the attitude of Americans toward immigrants. I felt the writer wove the theme together with some of the traditions of Christmas very thoughtfully.

Happy holidays everyone! Do something nice for a stranger this holiday season!

Quote:

December 24, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Kindness of Strangers
By RUBÉN MARTÍNEZ

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/op...&position=
Velarde, N.M.

THE young couple knocks on the heavy wooden door. They are weary and the hour is late; it is bitterly cold.

The husband says: "En nombre del cielo, os pido posada," in the name of heaven, I ask thee for lodging.

From behind the door comes the answer: "Este no es mesón, sigan adelante, yo no debo abrir, sea algún tunante," this is not an inn, move along, I shouldn't open up, it may be a thief.

The centuries-old tradition of las posadas is celebrated throughout Mexico and in practically every Mexican neighborhood in America in the days before Christmas. José and María trudge from door to door, turned away again and again until they are finally allowed to bed down in the humble manger where the Christ child is born. Everyone in the neighborhood gets a part in the play.

Like many traditions, this one can resonate with different tones according to the political tenor of the times. And with the immigration debate on the national agenda - President Bush is once again promoting "guest worker" legislation - this Christmas parable asks us to step inside the shoes of both the protagonists and antagonists, the migrant couple seeking shelter and the innkeepers who, momentarily, hold such power over the couple's fate.

Las posadas is a story about hospitality, certainly a "moral value," but not one pollsters ask about. Based on the notion of pilgrimage, a spiritual journey undertaken through the flesh, it is present in practically all the world's religions. Without the hospitality of those who live along the roads of one's pilgrimage - be it the hajj of Islam or a Catholic penitent's journey to a shrine - one would never arrive at one's destination. Hospitality implies reciprocity: the pilgrim received with generosity will one day have the occasion to return the favor. To shut the door on the wayfaring stranger would be to negate the possibility of one's own journey.

Of course, we shut the door all the time. We conclude, as the innkeepers do in the posada play, that José and María aren't pilgrims at all; they are "thieves" intent on taking from us and giving nothing in return. That is precisely what a strong majority of voters in Arizona apparently believed in November when they passed Proposition 200, which denies most public benefits to illegal migrants; on Wednesday, a federal judge cleared the way for the proposition to become law. "They" have come here merely to feed off America's welfare state - to take something for nothing. We do not extend hospitality to thieves.

Philosophers have long debated the ethics of hospitality, which raises a series of existential, legal and moral questions. Is pure hospitality practicable in a world of human unpredictability? Or is hospitality an indispensable practice precisely because of human unpredictability? In the post-9/11 world, we ponder the question more in terms of national security. How does one discern between the stranger to whom hospitality should be extended, and the stranger who poses a threat? Does war automatically exempt us from showing hospitality? Does a "war without end" permanently suspend such values?

Americans have long had a troubled, contradictory relationship with immigrants. We famously say that we are immigrants, indeed a "land of immigrants," and just as famously render them "them." While Liberty opens her arms to the tired, poor and huddled masses, we also greet the immigrant with ethnic slurs and sweatshop wages, with savage and simplistic representations on our movie and TV screens. We are immigrants who despise immigrants. To enact hospitality in this context is a radical act: it automatically erases the border between us and them. To open one's door to the stranger is to recognize that he no longer is one.

The nativist reacts against the immigrant with prosaic notions of "law and order." José has broken the law by crossing the river without the proper documents. María breaks the law by baby-sitting for money under the table. (The nativist has little to say about the natives who also break the law by hiring illegal aliens; he gains nothing politically by implicating himself in the crime.) But immigration codes are very human laws, born of economic and political realities - laws that blind us from perceiving the migrants for who they really are.

This notion of the foreigner as an economic mercenary has no relation whatsoever to the way migrants regard themselves. Ask Mexicans why they cross the Rio Grande and they will invariably say, "to seek a better life." They do not mean only material gain. Migrants travel through space and time, and are transformed by their encounter with the newness of the landscape, beginning with language. They are changed by their encounter with their other, with us.

Anyone who has grown up with more than one culture knows that to switch between languages is more than a matter of grammar and accent; meaning itself shifts, sometimes subtly, sometimes profoundly. To travel from one country to another, one language to another, is a journey of both spirit and flesh. The migrants sense this. In America, they are among our most fervently religious communities. In the barrio storefront church, they meditate on and give meaning to their passage - their sacrifice, their yearning for the transcendent, their crossing of the river.

And so now it is time again to face our contradictions head-on. The Bush administration is pushing an immigration agenda that is questioned from both the right and the left. The proposal offers documentation to immigrants who can prove gainful employment in the form of "contracts" of up to three years. President Bush on Monday repeated that the program would not be an amnesty (like that granted several million illegal immigrants in 1986). Nevertheless, conservatives argue that the program would reward criminals and pose a threat to national security. Liberals complain about institutionalizing the exploitation of foreign labor and the impact on native workers. Both sides reduce the immigrant to caricature. And both still imagine - in their rhetoric, at least - that the broken border between the United States and Mexico can be fixed.

But there was never enough of a border between us for it to have come undone. Immigration laws have always been enforced selectively, largely according to the needs of the labor economy. To a great extent, there is no functioning border, but we insist on believing there is one: imagining a borderless world is a leap into unfamiliar territory, a place where, in a sense, we would all be strangers.

Yet perhaps it is only in such a place where we might begin to offer genuine hospitality. At the very moment one opens the door to the stranger, one also crosses a border and sees not an immigrant, not an illegal alien, not a Mexican, but a face - a human face.

TONIGHT, in the final representation of the posada, José and María will wearily walk from door to door seeking shelter in the barrios, even as thousands of Josés and Marías arrive at the shore of the Rio Grande, the river they dream of as Jordan. They look to the other side, imagining la vida mejor. The Border Patrol stops some of them. Other migrants, in distress, find doors shut to them when they seek help. But most find a bed to sleep in. With family, with friends, even with strangers - that is the story of immigration in America these days. Perhaps we are a hospitable land, after all. How else could we have become this "land of immigrants"?

In New Mexico, one of the most lyrical metaphors in the posada tradition is that of the farolitos, votive candles that glow inside paper sacks weighed down by sand. These light the path toward that place where José and María will finally be recognized for who they are: pilgrims seeking shelter on the road, faces that serve as mirrors to our own.

Rubén Martínez, an associate professor of creative writing at the University of Houston, is the author of "The New Americans" and "Crossing Over: A Mexican Family on the Migrant Trail."

Steve · #2 (**permalink**) 12-28-2004, 03:36 PM

Although we may want to be hospitable to those seeking a better life, we need to be cautious.

It's not anti-immigrant, per se, to insist on knowing exactly who is entering the country and why they're here and even to regulate who we allow to enter, when they enter and why they enter. There are people out there who want to kill us, and good sense tells us we've got to weed them out.

If we believe in the principle of self-determination for people, this principle has to include the American people as well. Part of self-determination is deciding who you're going to allow in to live among you, when and why.

The hard part is striking the balance.

SurfDog · #3 (**permalink**) 02-25-2005, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Although we may want to be hospitable to those seeking a better life, we need to be cautious.

Wow, you completely missed the whole point of that story.

ACE · #4 (**permalink**) 02-28-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgandersen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Although we may want to be hospitable to those seeking a better life, we need to be cautious.

Wow, you completely missed the whole point of that story.

How did he miss the point?

peacemover · #5 (**permalink**) 02-28-2005, 02:13 PM

I will reply by quoting a couple of excerpts from the story that I believe may help to illuminate the overall point the writer seems to be making here:

Quote:

We [Americans] are immigrants who despise immigrants. To enact hospitality in this context is a radical act: it automatically erases the border between us and them. To open one's door to the stranger is to recognize that he no longer is one.

. . .

And so now it is time again to face our contradictions head-on. The Bush administration is pushing an immigration agenda that is questioned from both the right and the left. The proposal offers documentation to immigrants who can prove gainful employment in the form of "contracts" of up to three years. President Bush on Monday repeated that the program would not be an amnesty (like that granted several million illegal immigrants in 1986). Nevertheless, conservatives argue that the program would reward criminals and pose a threat to national security. Liberals complain about institutionalizing the exploitation of foreign labor and the impact on native workers. Both sides reduce the immigrant to caricature. And both still imagine - in their rhetoric, at least - that the broken border between the United States and Mexico can be fixed.

But there was never enough of a border between us for it to have come undone. Immigration laws have always been enforced selectively, largely according to the needs of the labor economy. To a great extent, there is no functioning border, but we insist on believing there is one: imagining a borderless world is a leap into unfamiliar territory, a place where, in a sense, we would all be strangers.

Yet perhaps it is only in such a place where we might begin to offer genuine hospitality. At the very moment one opens the door to the stranger, one also crosses a border and sees not an immigrant, not an illegal alien, not a Mexican, but a face - a human face.

Steve · #6 (**permalink**) 02-28-2005, 02:44 PM

Hospitality usually refers to guests, doesn't it? We extend hospitality to people who will be staying with us for a while. The word as commonly understood does not require us to invite them to live with us permantly.

Recognizing the essential humanity of all people and wanting to be good to them and do right by them does not necessarily mean:
1. That we must invite them to live with us permanently
2. That we don't take necessary precautions to protect ourselves. Most people are decent. Some are not. It's perfectly reasonable to find out who is who before inviting them in (the Christmas story notwithstanding). To not do so would be foolish.
3. That we only help others by allowing them to live with us permantly. We can help people by sharing our resources with them where they are. I can feed the poor family down the block by giving them food. I don't have to seat them at my table for every meal from now until I die. (that might be nice, but it's not required for true compassion or decency to be shown).
4. That the owners of the house, in this case the American people, don't have the right to decide who and how many we allow in and for what reason. Again, people have the right to self-determination and that includes Americans regarding their own country.

This should not in any way be taken as an anti-immigration post. It should be taken as an "immigration on OUR terms" post.

peacemover · #7 (**permalink**) 02-28-2005, 05:34 PM

Steve, the laundry list of fears you raise is not uncommon in the minds of many Americans from what I gather- i.e. the mentality that if we give immigrants a little bit of leeway, there will be no turning back and they will forever be squatters taking advantage of American "generosity." Then there is the fear that stealing jobs from Americans, even though these jobs are available because the vast majority of Americans simply will not do them... etc, etc...

And the whole self-determination thing about "our country" is a big lie as well... America only got to be dominated by white men, as you know, because the European settlers came over here not in true hospitality or friendship but to systematically commit genocide against Native Americans until they were banished to a couple of rinky dink "reservations" in Oklahoma and all but wiped off the face of the continent.

Somehow I don't hear many people from the anti-immigration camp talking much about that little fact though...

Also, a big part of the problem is the whole "us vs. them" mentality...

It is not us (as in anglo-American United States citizens- or whatever one's unique cultural-demographic identity may be) against the rest of the world...

We are all part of the human race, and need to take the time and effort to cultivate relations with people of other origins.

As far as your "protection" argument goes- just look at the soaring crime rate in America (one of the highest in the world) and you will see proof-positive that having a stringent immigration policy DOES NOT in any way shape or form help reduce crime. Crime and safety are domestic issues that we need to address at a grassroots community by community level.

A significant part of this, I believe, is getting to know and working together with our neighbors and people in our community- not just to "protect our own" but to seek to be good neighbors to people of other backgrounds, nationalities, religions, and cultures than our own.

About helping people "where they are"- of course we should help people where they are, and no one is suggesting that you "seat them at my table for every meal from now until I die." (another example of the us vs. them mentality)...

I like the quote from the cartoon Pogo from a few years back that says:

"I've seen the enemy, and it is us."

I think that is so true- our government and media pumps the American people so full of fear, that all too many people latch onto the false belief that cultural difference somehow equals enmity and warrants distrust...

We have to break out of the culture of fear, refuse to accept it, and move out of the comfort zone and into taking the risk of extending true hospitality and being a good neighbor to others regardless of what background, nationality, religion or culture they are from...

Let's build more bridges, not put up more walls!

Steve · #8 (**permalink**) 03-01-2005, 11:04 AM

So, in the name of humanity, decency and compassion you would allow anyone in without first being screened? You would take no effort to weed out the bad eggs (admittedly a small percentage - but we've learned that a few bad eggs can cause a LOT of damage)? Since when does compassion demand that we be stupid? What you call living in fear, I call common sense precautions.

Regarding the Native Americans. I can't do anything about what happened to them. That happened in the past, before I was born. Perhaps reparations would be in order. We can debate that. However, what cruel European men did a century or two ago does not have bearing on this topic in the here and now. Please stay focused.

Again, I am most decidely NOT in the anti-immigrant camp, as you seemingly alleged earlier. As I said in another post on some other thread, I would love for Philadelphia's neighborhoods to be re-populated with immigrants who would undoubtedly rebuild them. What I AM against is not having any idea who is coming here and why they are here.

Yes, we are all part of the human race and common decency demands that we be good to one another and help one another. Again, that decency doesn't demand that we allow a free-for-all at our borders. In fact, it seems to me that humanity and decency demand quite the opposite - that we make the process orderly and apprehend the dangerous ones before they get in so no harm can be done to those already here. I'm talking about regular crime here, not just massive acts of terror.

The fact that many native-born people commit crime in NO way negates the argument of taking care not to let new criminals in. "Well, America already has 100,000 murderers, what's one more gonna matter?"

Peace: All I'm asking for is that we get a handle on who we are letting in, no matter where they are from. I'm not asking for an end to immigration, just that it be done orderly and legally and in a way that benefits the US. Taking meaningful security precautions does not make one a facist, racist, authoritarian, paranoid or an inhuman monster. Why is this such a problem?

The first job of any government is to protect its citizens from harm. One of the best ways to do this is to keep those who would cause harm OUT. The only way to do this is to tighten border security.

peacemover · #9 (**permalink**) 03-01-2005, 12:59 PM

Steve,

I don't think it was ever said by me or anyone else that we should "let everyone in."

Obviously that is not appropriate, and if you know anything about the INS, they will certainly continue to do their screenings, security checks and so forth, as they should- especially in the wake of 9/11.

The real problem that I see with this particular issue is the general distrust by Americans of people just because they are from a different background, nation or culture.

This sort of bigotry and cultural elitism rears its ugly head in the form of legislation such as those denying basic rights or care to immigrants or so-called "alien" residents (for an interesting discussion on this whole term see the "Illegal Alien" thread: http://phillyblog.com/forum/viewtopi...amp;highlight=)

There have been a whole slew of state referendums out in California, and a number of the southwestern states seeking to sharply limit or deny rights and basic state benefits to these folks.

Another example was the "English only" initiative of a few years back where laws were proposed trying to make it mandatory that only English could be spoken in American workplaces. All of it is pretty bigoted and prejudicial if you ask me.

seand · #10 (**permalink**) 03-01-2005, 01:17 PM

Nicely put , John.