Lowering the Refugee Ceiling

“Many non-Christians seem to think the idea of an evangelical who cares about refugees is oxymoronic. They are aware of a poll showing that just 25 percent of white evangelicals believe the US has a responsibility to welcome refugees, far lower than any other religious demographic in the country. We’ve become known—fairly or not—as heartless and xenophobic.”

So writes Matthew Soerens in Christianity Today (“Don’t Underestimate the Impact of Lowering the US Refugee Ceiling,” 30 Sep 2019).

Soerens writes to express his sorrow at the lessened number of refugees the United States will be letting into the country in 2020. The average ceiling for refugees has been around 95,000 for the past four decades. In 2020, the number has been reduced to 10,000.

Recent wars, famine, and violence have contributed to massive numbers of refugees, yet we are choosing to help fewer of them. Not only are we ignoring desperate needs. Our example influences other wealthy nations to ignore refugees as well.

Soerens is World Relief’s US director of church mobilization. He has co-authored a book, Welcoming the Stranger: Justice, Compassion & Truth in the Immigration Debate.

Soerens is not advocating “letting everybody in.” He is not advocating open borders.

What alarms him is reducing to practically nothing the reasoned, systematic intake of those who have always strengthened our country and contributed to its success.

In so doing, we are throwing away one of the foundation stones of this country. Welcoming a fair share of desperate men, women, and children who have lost homes, livelihoods, and safety is part of our DNA that has blessed us and blessed the world.

Wars Forever?

Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy professor at Johns Hopkins, lists contenders for power faced by the United States today. He names them as Russia, China, and Iran. (“The New Containment; Handling Russia, China, and Iran,” Foreign Affairs; March/April 2019)

He suggests we apply the lesson we learned so well in our dealings with the former Soviet Union. We persevered in that contest through containment. Thankfully, though we engaged in smaller wars on the planet, wisely or unwisely, we never engaged the Soviet Union in an all-out war that no doubt would have devastated the planet.

Our problems differ with each one of today’s contenders. Russia nibbles at countries close by like Georgia and Ukraine. China wants hegemony in her area of the world, but the U.S. and China are huge trading partners. Our interest in Iran is limited to containment of conflict in the Middle East.

Mandelbaum did not mention North Korea. That county exemplifies the dangers of rogue nations developing nuclear weapons.

His reasoning involves working with allies, not abandoning organizations like NATO. Nor should we abandon allies like Japan and South Korea and Taiwan.

The widespread use of sanctions against North Korea is one example of smart power. Many nations signed on to the sanctions because of the obvious danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of someone like Kim Jong-un.

The rise in populism endangers our dependence on allies. It would be unwise for populists to scrap the global role of the United States in the world, especially since the current setup calls, not for military action, but careful tuning of U.S. partnerships with allies.

Cautions Mandelbaum: “Should the country turn decisively away from its global role and allow the revisionist challenges to advance unchecked, however, Americans’ happy detachment from the world beyond their borders may disappear. And by the time they realize what they need to protect, it may be too late to do so without great difficulty and high cost.”

How Do We Prevent Another Rwanda?

The African country of Rwanda was devastated by horrible massacres of one ethnic group by another in 1994. An estimated 500,000 to 800,000 were murdered in genocidal attacks merely for being born into a particular ethnic group.

The Nazi genocide of European Jews remains the best known example of this kind of atrocity—the attempted extermination of one group of people by another. People are hunted and murdered merely because they are born into that group.

David Rawson, the U.S. ambassador to Rwanda when the massacre occurred, discussed the need to better understand and prevent such atrocities.(“Predicting and Preventing Intrastate Violence; Lessons from Rwanda,” The Foreign Service Journal, September 2019)

He states: “Great powers are reluctant to intervene, especially in little countries off the radar scope of their national interests.”

After all, with the results of our now-regrettable intervention in countries like Iraq, who wants to send our troops to yet another trouble spot?

Writing in the same issue of The Foreign Service Journal (“Getting Preventive Stabilization on the Map”) , David C. Becker and Steve Lewis suggest a cheaper way: going after movements before they become conflicts.

Neither article is especially optimistic, but the idea of prevention suggests a glimmer of hope. Prevention includes the requirement to work with local partners “and a willingness to take modest risks with meager resources.”

An example was cited of a few aid agency groups in Indonesia who encouraged talks between Christian and Muslim community leaders. The talks led to the realization that outside groups were trying to encourage violence, leading the locals to repudiate such violence.

A quote based on conversation attributed to Winston Churchill says: ““Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war.”

Talking is certainly less expensive in lives and resources. And who knows? It may work.

“A Nation of Strong Communities”

A column in The Economist (August 3 2019, “Lexington: The mighty Dolphins”) praised one American community’s enthusiasm for its swim team. The columnist then reflected on this country’s unique community spirit.

The nineteenth century French commentator on America, Alexis de Tocqueville, noted “a nation of strong communities founded on voluntary service.”

Yet Americans have been commenting for some time about the weakening of their community spirit.

Churches and labor unions have less influence, Lexington said. Careers have become more important for both fathers and mothers. Exhausted parents have less time for groups outside the home.

Well-off parents and activists are more likely to practice community activities. They are more likely to have freer hours, as well as money.

What can we do to give other citizens opportunities for such activities? More paid leave time? Perhaps we should also praise those who are able to temporarily drop careers for a while to serve their families and communities. Less time on digital media and more time with family and friends would serve community, too.

The Cost of Learning

John Thornton, a Baptist pastor in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, writes: “Spending on consumer goods has not driven people into debt. Rather the rising cost of fixed goods like housing, healthcare, and education combined with stagnant wages have.” (Plough, Winter, 2019)

Thornton has incurred a large debt for his education. He lauded the schools he attended as successful in instilling in him the character he needed in his career.

It also, however, left him with a monetary debt. That debt influenced him in the choices he had to make to pay it off.

Choices in education increasingly have to do with what fields are more economically rewarding. They have less to do with equipping someone to serve or to explore knowledge. Choosing education has become a “consumer decision.”

Given this outlook, we may produce less teachers and scientists and more computer engineers and CEO’s of finance. We may neglect service careers as well as the “why” careers, the ones seeking knowledge and meaning.

Creating faster computer chips and working ever more efficiencies into our economic machines are not evil in themselves. Good things result: better medical diagnostic tools, for example, or more efficient energy systems.

But our technology also has provided new ways to spread hatred and to kill. We have also improved our economic machines at the expense of the average men and women who maintain them. The underclass that resulted is riddled with growing suicide rates and drug overdoses.

For kindness and meaning and a reason to live, we need thinkers and teachers and healers and spiritual leaders.

We need more of our resources underwriting the basics mentioned by John Thornton: housing, healthcare, and education. Cheaper basics make it easier for the less materially rewarded, including, perhaps, thinkers and teachers and healers and spiritual leaders.

Second Amendment? What About the First Amendment?

Leonard Pitts Jr plays on the words from one of Shakespeare’s plays: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

This Shakespearean line, spoken by the character Dick the Butcher, is a back-handed compliment to lawyers, who may impede tyranny.

Today, Pitts suggests, some are trying to kill all the journalists. (“Trump’s anti-journalism hit squad,” The Seattle Times, Sep 1 2019)

Apparently, a group is targeting journalists unfavorable to President Donald Trump’s administration, searching for any less than admirable episodes in their past lives. The goal is to blacken and render suspect any journalist who writes against the policies of the president.

Trump himself has tweeted against reputable news organizations as “enemies of the people.” He has called The New York Times, winner of over a hundred Pulitzer prizes for excellence in reporting, “an evil propaganda machine.”

Evil propaganda machines certainly exist, mostly the sort who seed the internet with unverifiable rumors. Newspapers who engage in research, who send experienced reporters to the far corners of the earth, and whose reporters sometimes have died to bring the truth to their readers, do not fall in the category of an evil propaganda machine.

Reporting on government, popular and unpopular, is, in fact, the job given the press by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Press freedom is right up there with freedom of religion and of speech and of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition their government for wrongs done them.

If you want to see what happens to a free press as a democracy is stifled, read an article, in The Economist (“The Entanglement of Powers,” August 32, 2019) about Hungary’s authoritarian leader, Viktor Orban.

Orban has virtually taken over all three branches of Hungary’s government—the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. He has been able to do this in part because his party also controls most of the country’s newspapers, turning them into a propaganda machine for Orban.

Times of change and turmoil, as the world has been in at least since September 11, 2001, tempt people to look for simple solutions. Deep reporting on real issues may conflict with nostalgia for easy answers, but we need it all the more.

On Court Prophets and Wilderness Prophets, Christian Responses to the President

That’s the title of an article in Christianity Today (Timothy Dalrymple, July 19 2019). The author talks about those prophets who worked inside the royal court and those who didn’t.

According to the two examples given, court prophets work for a king’s repentance. Wilderness prophets cry out against sin far from any seat of power.

I invite you to read the article for its insights. I found the following passage especially thought provoking:

“As for me, I wonder if we have too many court prophets in an era when wilderness prophets are needed. I also wonder if our court prophets are willing to call out sin when they see it. Whether you view Trump as a David or an Antipas, whether you serve at the court of the resplendent king or stand over against the court from the wilderness, one thing Nathan and John the Baptist held in common was that both were willing to condemn unrighteousness in their rulers—even if it cost them everything.”

What Happens if We Stop Having Babies and Stop Letting in Immigrants?

The United States faces demographic challenges. A rise in suicides, especially for the young, and in drug overdoses, has contributed to an ominous drop in life expectancy for the first time in a century. The employment rate for men of laboring age also is low.

Working couples have less time for children. One child families now are common. Raising a child is expensive. Higher education and medical costs can swamp families with debt.

Nicholas Eberstadt, at the American Enterprise Institute, explores the relationship between a country’s population growth and its power in “With Great Demographics Comes Great Power.” (Foreign Affairs, July/August 2019)

He suggests China’s rise is due in part to its large population. Close to 1 in 5 people in the world today are Chinese. Yet China’s demographic advantage may change due to the aftermath of the now abandoned one child policy of past years. It appears that China’s birth rate has dropped below replacement level.

While the birth rate in the United States is falling, many Americans view immigration with disfavor. In the past, even when our birth rates fell, immigration made up some of the loss. Now even that is in doubt.

Community Falling and Rising

My son, nieces, and a niece’s fiancé visited to celebrate my birthday this week.

It was a lovely few days, crowded with activities. We met airport shuttles (one at 1:30 a.m.), hiked hills in the island’s wooded preserves, and ate my favorite dessert, lemon icebox pie. (The family knows I prefer this over birthday cake.)

We shared during meals and discussed the directions we are taking and retold family legends. I met the fiancé for the first time and was delighted to discover he is an Arkansas boy who talks like me.

Another group I belonged to, formed several years ago to share our lives, provided my husband and me with wonderful friends. However, as members gradually died or moved away, the group chose not to meet any longer.

Indeed, aging’s natural process means most groups die. The exceptions are groups renewing themselves with the young.

Families and religious groups are built through this youth renewal. Renewal depends on birth, but also on adoption. In the case of families, the adoption can be of a child or of an in-law. Spiritual adoption may include the ones left out of other groups, the strangers and the needy.

Gone wrong, families and religions cause enormous harm. Done right, they renew us and give us meaning and purpose and strength for tough changes.

They are, I suspect, our ultimate hope.

Community After the Shootings

After the horrible double shootings recently, I found comfort in the community of my church.

With all the current commentary about the decline in Christian churches, I find no other comfort as healing as this community.

We sorrow, of course, and rage, too, at the continued evil that targets innocent people. Then we find purpose in the story of a man who preached love but was himself targeted and killed. Yet, he overcame.

Indeed, two thousand years later, this man’s followers persist. They tend to refugees and feed the hungry and comfort those who mourn. Some of them are killed, too, but where their message is lived out, people regroup and stubbornly conquer by loving even one’s enemies.

Jesus in the Voting Booth

“Forty years ago in Houston, Texas, a group of conservative pastors pulled off a heist at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention that reshaped both America’s biggest Protestant denomination and its national politics.” (Lexington: “On the Edge,” The Economist, June 15, 2019)

The article comments on the denomination’s story since that Houston meeting. Many evangelical leaders became openly political, usually favoring candidates from the Republican party.

Forty years on, what has been the result of the politicalization of a denomination? According to the article: “The confidence that fueled the 1979 resurgence is long gone. The convention’s membership . . . is at its lowest in 30 years, and falling. Half of all Southern Baptist children leave the faith . . .”

What’s the takeaway? Perhaps a call for the support of certain directions rather than support of a particular party.

Jesus’ ministry took place in an empire ruled by an aristocratic elite, but we still might learn from his interaction with the leaders of the day. He seemed inordinately concerned for the poor, the hungry, the sick, the dying, and the grieving.

Jesus welcomed any of the wealthy who came to him. However, he told stories like the one consigning a rich man to the flames of hell because of the man’s disregard for the poor beggar in his neighborhood.

Perhaps Christians might vote with these examples in mind.

Frankenstein News

Some call Mary Shelley’s famous novel Frankenstein the first science fiction novel. Her theme is repeated in many later stories. Someone creates a powerful being or force only to see the creation become a weapon of destruction.

The printing press, popularized by Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century, was an amazing technological advance. It made possible the creation of reading material cheap enough for ordinary people to buy. All sorts of information became available. Everything from the Bible to new scientific theories to incendiary tracts was produced and consumed.

From that time, ordinary people had access to ideas and to the pleasures of reading. Countless lives have been saved through accessible knowledge.

However, cheap printing also made possible the spread of false information like the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hoax purporting to prove a Jewish plot to dominate the world. This type of easily accessible lying contributed to the murder of millions in World War II.

The digital age has multiplied the Gutenberg effect many times over. Warnings of hurricanes and other disasters wake us from sleep, pinged from our mobiles. Supreme Court decisions and election results are known instantly.

But anyone with an email account or a twitter handle can spread stories, verified or not, sending them off like so much tree pollen in a spring wind.

Efforts at some kind of control over hate material and outright lying are necessary but have limited success.

In truth, the only controls over this digital flood are we the consumers. We can be tempted by Frankenstein rumors or we can choose trusted sources for our information.

 

Luis Velez and Trump’s Tweets

Have You Seen Luis Velez? is a beautiful story of a seventeen-year-old boy and an elderly blind woman connecting with each other and finding a way out of their loneliness.

The story is set in New York City, with its mingling of indifference and the occasional surprise of caring strangers. The story weaves a subtle tale of tribalism but also times when tribalism is overcome. Thus it is a tale of hope.

I read the novel as hate flew back and forth in news stories about four young congresswoman of color, their liberalism riling even some members of their own party.

It wasn’t the stands they took or opposition to those stands. No one has perfect knowledge. Our political system is supposed to provide a way for differences to be lived with and for solutions to be hammered out that work.

Instead, many descended to pure hatred.

I was angry, but something worse joined my anger. For the first time, I became afraid that this country I love will be lost.

I began to fear this tribalism, this unAmerican belief that one group of people is intrinsically superior to all others. It sneaks up on us in our fear of change—the belief that a few people deserve to rule all the rest. It seems so safe, so beguiling.

Are white Europeans superior? That’s the people who, after centuries of bloodshed and fighting, finally began the two worst wars the world has ever seen.

For the first time, I’m afraid too many of us may succumb to hatred.

Yet, as in Luis Velez, it may be possible to step across that fear and hatred. Possible, perhaps, to listen and search for wise and just answers, not those born of knee-jerk hatred against the stranger.

It’s Close Enough For Government Work

“It’s close enough for government work,” the old joke goes. Actually, much “government” work these days is not done by government employees but by contractors. That’s because, over the years, the belief grew that the government employed too many people.

We could save money by contracting work to what many believed were more efficient business models, so the idea went.

However, the reduction led to backlogs for some agencies, like the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration.

In addition, as the The New York Times (January 3, 2014) pointed out: “ . . . the current practice of contracting out vast swaths of government work indefinitely . . . has created a bloated federal-contractor sector in which the public good is often subservient to profit.”

The outsourcing of work can seem unfair, for example, if a contract worker in a war zone makes a much higher salary than a soldier for Uncle Sam serving in the same area.

No one supposes government employees are all sterling characters. Oversight is required. However, they are generally hired for a particular job function. Unlike contractors, they are not there to make as much money as possible off the taxpayers.

When I worked in a U.S. embassy overseas as a career government employee, I cooperated with the information tech contractors who came to install new computer systems in the embassy. They were nice guys (all males, as I remember) and as far as I could tell did an adequate job with the new systems.

They went back to their hotel at five in the afternoon, followed by an evening out. I usually stayed another hour or so, taking advantage of the quiet to finish work.

If an American citizen called in with an overnight emergency, I came in and worked as long as necessary to find some resolution for the problem.

I had my job, and the contractors had theirs. Contracting makes sense in areas where the need for the work increases for a limited time or requires unusual expertise.

Certainly, U.S. government employees have been guilty of shoddy work, or worse, betraying their country. They take an oath, however, to obey the laws and Constitution of the United States and often develop pride in what they see as serving their country.

With the number of contractors in recent years found guilty of misusing their access to government documents, that sense of pride should not be lightly dismissed.

The Biggest Finding from the Mueller Investigation

From Stephen Kotkin (“American Hustle, What Mueller Found—and Didn’t Find—About Trump and Russia)” in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2019):

“ . . . Russians approaching the Trump campaign could not figure out whom to contact, who was in charge, or who mattered. . . . Putin, supposedly, could help Trump get elected but could not talk to him, despite the publically expressed eagerness of Trump and his people to enter into contact and make deals.”

Jared Kushner is quoted as saying, “They thought we colluded, but we couldn’t even collude with our local offices.”

Apparently, the Trump campaign was so poorly organized that the Russians couldn’t figure out who to talk to. Trump’s people didn’t collude with the Russians because, in Kotkin’s opinion, they were too inept to do so.

A Marshall Plan Approach to Immigration?

El Salvador is one of the so-called “Deadly Triangle” countries of Central America, along with Guatemala and Honduras. These are the countries from which many of the refugees flocking across the southern border of the United States are coming, fleeing violence and abuse.

For decades, these countries have been ruled by corrupt dictators. During the Cold War, the dictators beguiled the U.S. with fears of a communist takeover, leading Americans to turn a blind eye to horrible human rights abuses. Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated in El Salvador when he stood up for the victims.

Nayib Bukele, newly elected president of El Salvador, has called for a new approach to the violence and poverty in his country.

He wants economic and social investments, like job creation and schools. He has called for working with Mexico on immigration issues and beginning a new relationship with the United States.

President Bukele is not from either of the two parties which have ruled El Salvador for decades. Instead of our dealing with immigration only as a border problem, the United States might work with President Bukele on a new approach.

Perhaps we could base it on the Marshall Plan, used so successfully to build up war-torn Europe after World War II.

Begin with Thee and Me

We have different ideas about refugees and immigrants. Some welcome them with open arms. Some shun them as freeloaders and criminals. Some feel sympathy but worry about being overwhelmed by their numbers.

Recently I realized how I can’t get these people out of my mind.

From the little I know about my own ancestors, most came to this country before the American Revolution. I don’t know if they were refugees from wars in Ireland or England or France or if they were drawn simply by promises of a better life. Some of them appear to have been poor, a few more well off.

For all I know, my ancestral tree may include native Americans and black slaves as well as Europeans, but certainly the family benefitted from white privilege. We also benefitted from immigrating at the right time.

That’s why I can’t get those refugees, like the ones on our southern border, out of my mind. They’re my people several generations back.

Whatever choices we make in immigration reform—and we certainly need reform—perhaps we can act from the understanding that these immigrants and refugees are us. Wisdom we need, but hatred and disparagement we don’t.

The numbers may be large, but our policies, if we are not to be judged by a higher power, must come from compassion—toward them as well as the countries they come from.

If You Break It, You Own It.

Many Americans have forgotten that the United States fought, not one, but two wars against Iraq.

The first one, in 1991, may be forgotten because we chose limited aims and achieved them. As soon as the oil-rich country of Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi invaders, the United States left Kuwait and chose not to invade Iraq. We were not saddled with an endless war.

The second war against Iraq, beginning in 2003, was a war we did not need to undertake. We were already fighting in Afghanistan as a result of the 9/ll terrorist attacks.

However, some of our leaders wanted regime change in Iraq. Some possibly had economic reasons—wanting the oil from that country. Others liked the idea of getting rid of an admittedly cruel dictator.

Regardless, Iraq was accused of having nuclear weapons. On flimsy evidence, the United States invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein. As it turned out, the Iraqis had no nuclear weapons.

Too late. We had broken Iraq and now owned it. Our venture cost us lives and national treasure. We still wrestle with problems from our engineered regime change in that country.

Today, some in our current political administration want regime change in another Middle Eastern country, Iran. That Iran has a nuclear program is not in doubt. However, a diplomatic process led to a halt in programs leading to nuclear weapons. It was not perfect, but it was a start toward lessening the threat of nuclear weapons.

Then the United States unilaterally pulled out of the nuclear deal, even though international inspectors had verified Iran’s compliance with the terms of the agreement.

Now members of the administration are pushing for regime change in Iran. Again, Iran certainly has sponsored conflict in the Middle East. Before we became involved, however, it was based on a centuries old conflict between two branches of Islam. With some reason, Iran now counts us as an enemy.

Remember, if you break it, you own it. We already own the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do we want to own a third?

The Money that Isn’t There

The late Senator John McCain strongly supported legislation for reform of political campaign funding. The McCain-Feingold Act was passed in 2002.

However, the Supreme Court undid much of the reform in various rulings, including the Citizens United ruling in 2010. The decisions opened the door for unlimited contributions from corporations and allowed more channels of secret money to pour into political campaigns.

According to opensecrets.org, election spending for the 2016 presidential and congressional elections was 6.5 billion dollars.

In a political process depending more and more on money, the advantages to the wealthy are obvious.

Consider also the increasing amounts of money given to political campaigns that might previously have been given to other causes—programs for troubled youth, drug rehabilitation, spiritual growth, to name a few.

Politics has consumed us in the past few years. We seem to believe that the magic candidate will solve all of America’s problems. Even ordinary citizens of limited means, who never before gave politically, turn anger into campaign spending.

In truth, it’s probably the efforts of individuals and small groups concerned for neighbors that do more good. But money given in the past for such programs may be finding its way into political campaigns instead.

Where We Go For the Most Important News

My husband and I subscribe to digital versions of a couple of national newspapers, including our closest major metropolitan daily.

However, the one we faithfully pull out of the newspaper tube next to our mailbox is our twice weekly local newspaper. This one may be the most important.

What did our city council consider in its last meeting about the proposed zoning plans for the city?

How long will one of the ferries serving our island be removed before another replaces it?

What’s going on at the arts center?

We scan the local police report, too.

Oh, yes—there’s the picture of our local high school graduates. Also, a story on the end of the sports year at the school. Announcements of scholarships and what the two student speakers at the commencement will be talking about.

Let’s see, here’s an article about the elementary school students harvesting vegetables from their garden.

We check the events calendar—everything from a library book sale to a meeting for children of alcoholics and dysfunctional families.

Of course, we must read the letters from readers—this is where our neighbors endorse candidates, weigh in on government proposals, and make their opinions known.

All newspapers face challenges today. One of our civic duties is to keep them as strong as possible.

Support is especially vital for our local papers. Regular reporting on local governments and the issues which affect our lives, more than anything else, favors a strong democracy.