Two verses
from the Hebrew bible, informing as it does the conscience of Western
democracies, opens our exploration. Do not
maltreat the migrant and do not oppress him because you were migrants in the
land of Egypt. (Exodus 22:20) An
awareness of the wheel of fortune teaches that sometimes we rely on the
openness of other peoples and other societies to help us in times of need. This memory of our time in Egypt engendering generosity and gratitude is even
more remarkable given the harsh reality of that time in Egypt. Nevertheless, we
are enjoined to take from that experience an openness to the migrant seeking to
benefit from our society. Several times, the Bible harkens back to Egypt as
impetus for kindness to the stranger and even a forgiving attitude to the
Egyptian slave master. A different
verse speaks not to what we owe the migrant but what the migrant owes the host
society in terms of obeying the law. Being subject to the law, both obligates
the migrant and confers rights and protections. You
shall have one kind of law, for the migrant as well as the native-born; for I
am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 24:22) I think the
polarizing debates around immigration in America, certainly in the run up to
this election, would do well to remain mindful of these complimentary Biblical injunctions.
One law must govern the migrant and the citizen. He cannot be allowed to
circumvent the necessary procedures, tests and screens that a country sets up
to properly absorb and assimilate newcomers. Democrats would do well to
recognize that a coherent immigration policy must presuppose working borders. But
Republicans would do well to recognize that almost everyone in America was once
new to that land. North America was built on immigration. There is vociferous
and popularist opposition to immigration egged on by former President Trump
that resonates deeply with his voters. It is a suspicion and oppression of the
migrant that contravenes the first verse quoted above. Understanding that
opposition will help us contend with it. We need to
disambiguate three, often conflated categories: Immigrants, Refugees and
Revolutionaries. Immigrants seek better opportunity in a new land. Refugees are
forced out of the “old country” because of war or famine or political
oppression and seek asylum in the “new country.” Both they and their hosts may
regard the grant of asylum as temporary, holding out hope that conditions are
restored in the “old country” allowing the refugee to return home.
Revolutionaries carry habits and beliefs from the “old country” about how
things should be done in the “new country.” They seek ways to refashion the new
country in the image of the old country. The opposition to immigration focuses
on the sense that these newcomers are changing the country that we know and
love for the worse. We need to examine that sense, recognize when it is
legitimate and when not. Immigrants are more willing to leave behind the faulty
constructs and social ills that frustrated their progress in the “old country”
and to assimilate the better ways of doing things in the “new country.” Thus,
the immigrant does not pose a problem to the existing population, so long as we
correctly identify those “better ways” we ask the immigrant to embrace. I still
have some investments in the bank where I grew up in suburban Toronto. I
returned recently to check on those deposits to find that my bank had become
entirely Chinese. The signage facing the street, Chinese, the explanatory
pamphlets, Chinese, and all the management Chinese, Chinese Canadian, I rush to
add. I found it difficult to get good advice for my money, across a stilted
language barrier. I felt the trust that my precious investments were in good
hands erode and a desire to move them elsewhere. Was that fair? Was my
financial advisor an immigrant to Canada, a refugee refusing to part with her
old ways or a revolutionary, infiltrating my neighborhood bank and slowing
placing it inside a communist Chinese orbit?
The
demographics of North America are steadily changing, becoming more brown, more
Asian and more non-English speaking. If a bank wants to flourish in my old
neighborhood, it would do well to do exactly what it did even if that makes me
less comfortable, even encouraging my relocation. The signs of a shifting
aesthetic, religion and culture are evident over the half-century of my
connection to that neighborhood. But my old neighborhood is no less Canadian
for it. When we ask an immigrant to leave behind the old country and embrace
the new country that does not necessarily include aesthetics or religion or
even culture. Language is a legitimate issue, and it is important that strong
English speakers are accorded privileges. And as long as that is in place, the
children of those immigrants will grow up speaking a fine English. They are not
refugees, and we should have no expectation or suspicion that they are going
back to China any time soon. Nor are they revolutionaries as my bank remains a
secure, legal, thriving Canadian institution even as I might move to a better English-speaking
branch. Revolutionaries do exist and they are indeed a problem seeking as they
do the undoing of the principles that make North America the attractive
location it is for migrants. They must be recognized by actions and attitudes
antagonistic to western democracies and not by projecting those attitudes upon
foreigners by virtue of their different aesthetic. Those revolutionaries are
certainly plentiful and powerful among the native born. In trying to further
the needs of an existing population, it should be remembered that productive
immigrants contribute much to the society and economy. We need to remember
those verses encouraging our charity while insisting on the rule of law. And we
should be discerning about who we let in, properly distinguishing between
immigrants, refugees and revolutionaries without painting them all with the
same brush.