Elmore Leonard, Robert Duvall, and a neglected corner

I enjoy Elmore Leonard.  His Westerns are mind candy, but with good grit.  I am grateful to him for getting me to pay more attention to Jose Marti, who showed up in the background of one of his stories.  I also think very highly of Robert Duvall, who played Boo Radley in To Kill a Mockingbird, had parts in a long list of great movies, and directed his own powerful and complex movie, The Apostle.  So when I came across an old movie with screen play by Leonard, co-starring Duvall, I checked it out.  Joe Kidd, starring Clint Eastwood, 1972 – when Clint’s glints were amazing.

Netflix summary: A wealthy landowner (Robert Duvall) attempts to hire former bounty hunter Joe Kidd (Clint Eastwood) and a band of killers to track down a group of armed revolutionary Mexicans (led by John Saxon's Luis Chama) whose U.S. land claims were denied and then burned by the government. At first, Kidd turns down the offer, until Chama steals his horse and terrorizes his friends. John Sturges directs from an original screenplay by Elmore Leonard.

“… Mexicans whose land claims were denied and then burned by the government.”  Interesting background, and another aspect of the immigration horror show.

Check it out, for a great show!  (And think it over.)

by the streams we sat and wept

1948.  In the Bracero program, Americans hired Mexicans to work the fields, then deported them when the work was done.  In a friendly fashion.

Larry Hamm, a good friend since 1962, sent me a great article today about Woody Guthrie, and in the article I came across a reference to “The Plane Wreck at Los Gatos.”  There was a plane crash in California in 1948.  The people who died were "just deportees." Pete Seeger said that Woody Guthrie wanted to give their names back to the deportees.

 I found the lyrics (below) and a performance (http://www.woodyguthrie.de/deportee.html). 

Deportee
(also known as "Plane Wreck at Los Gatos")
Words by Woody Guthrie, Music by Martin Hoffman

The crops are all in and the peaches are rott'ning,
The oranges piled in their creosote dumps;
They're flying 'em back to the Mexican border
To pay all their money to wade back again

Goodbye to my Juan, goodbye, Rosalita,
Adios mis amigos, Jesus y Maria;
You won't have your names when you ride the big airplane,
All they will call you will be "deportees"

My father's own father, he waded that river,
They took all the money he made in his life;
My brothers and sisters come working the fruit trees,
And they rode the truck till they took down and died.

Some of us are illegal, and some are not wanted,
Our work contract's out and we have to move on;
Six hundred miles to that Mexican border,
They chase us like outlaws, like rustlers, like thieves.

We died in your hills, we died in your deserts,
We died in your valleys and died on your plains.
We died 'neath your trees and we died in your bushes,
Both sides of the river, we died just the same.

The sky plane caught fire over Los Gatos Canyon,
A fireball of lightning, and shook all our hills,
Who are all these friends, all scattered like dry leaves?
The radio says, "They are just deportees"

Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can grow our good fruit?
To fall like dry leaves to rot on my topsoil
And be called by no name except "deportees"?

© 1961 (renewed) by Woody Guthrie Publications, Inc. & TRO-Ludlow Music, Inc. (BMI)

Contact The Publisher-
The Richmond Organization (TRO)
Attention: Kathryn Ostien
266 West 37th Street, 17th Floor / New York, NY 10018-6609
Email: copyright@songways.com

New book on immigration PUBLISHED!

  Sign of the Crossing, by John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe, cover by JeanPaul Badjo. 

I completed a book on immigration.  It's available on Kindle ($3), or Amazon ($6).  I don't think that any any honest person can read the book and still argue that the Bible is neutral on immigration, or that the forceful demand in Scripture -- from Genesis to the last prophets, on through the Gospels to Acts -- applies only to "legal immigrants."  The argument only matters for about 3% of voters, but I think the argument is over.

The work on campuses remains.  I am still looking for people whose religious views and political views collide -- people who consider themselves to be serious about Scripture, but who are currently planning to vote against hospitality for immigrants (or, "for better enforcement of restrictions against ...").  Peruse the blog, check the website (marginofvictory.org), or get the book.

Back on track ...

I got knocked out of the fight for a few weeks.  A wonderful surgeon with a delightful sense of humor removed a few stray scraps of drying and worthless disk from my spine.  When I woke up, I thought my leg was going to float away, it felt so light.  That was a good day's work, ending some pain and recovering the use of some thigh muscles.  In a few days, I guess, I'll be mobile.

where's the word "immigrant"?

I am my father’s son.  He read the Encyclopedia Britannica for entertainment, and it stood on a long shelf in his bedroom.  When he was dying, we all clustered around his deathbed, praying and singing for a couple of days.  But prayer and study were tied together in our lives, and we took time to use the encyclopedia in his room.  In fact, as death got closer, perhaps an hour away, two of his children were in the room with him, checking a footnote in the encyclopedia.  So this morning, I bounced out of bed hunting for my Oxford English Dictionary, my beloved OED.  Some barbarian displaced/misplaced and/or failed to replace it during a recent domestic renovation/demolition.

I went to bed last night puzzling about why no one translates “ger” (in Hebrew) or “xenos” (in Greek) in the Bible as “immigrant.”  Nearly every translation of the Bible says “stranger.”  Why?  When I got up, I was on fire with a potential solution.  How old is the word “immigrant”?

And, by God, I was right!  It is a new word, or fairly new as Biblical translations go.  I could not lay my hands on my OED, but the Online Etymology Dictionary says that the word “immigrant” first appeared in America in 1792.  It started as an American English word.  The French, around the same time, were talking about the émigrés, the people who fled France to avoid the guillotine.  Americans needed a new word to talk about the shiploads of new Americans.  It is based on a Latin word (immigrare), so inventing the word was not a great stretch; but the word is pretty new, and it was American at the outset.  So translators did not use the word before the 19^th century -- because it wasn’t a word.

To be sure, there have been translations made since 1792.  But when you are translating into English and already know the beauty and strength of several translations, it is hard to step away from them.  A translator will use words that have worked well previously.  If translators were working with the Hebrew and Greek, without any knowledge of English versions, some would translate the words as “immigrant.”  But they all know the music of the “stranger,” and can be seduced by the music.

Still, I see another reason to stick with the word “stranger” most of the time, even when you know that “immigrant” is a good translation.

The starting point for this word concerns Abraham and his descendants in Egypt, up to Moses – “strangers in a strange land.”  The magic of this phrase is that the word “strange” is used twice, with two different perspectives.  “We were strangers”: that is, in the eyes of the Egyptians, we (Hebrews) were foreigners.  “In a strange land”:  that is, in our (Hebrew) eyes, Egypt was a foreign land.  The phrase reflects the perspective of the Egyptians, and then the perspective of the Hebrews.  You can’t do that with “immigrant.”  You can’t say, “We were immigrants in an immigrant land.”  We were exotics in an exotic land; we were foreigners in a foreign land – those work, but not as well as “stranger” – to my ear.

The equivalence of hosts and guests is an ancient and fascinating issue, and turns out to be a matter of huge importance, it seems to me.

In Greek, the word “xenos” means “stranger,” or “host,” or “guest.”  That it, it refers to people whom you do not know.  When you come in contact with strangers, politeness – that is, the rules of civilization, some civilization, any civilization – requires that you and the stranger deal with each other respectfully.  He is a stranger to you and you are a stranger to him.  The issue of mutual respect overshadows the issue of who is sedentary and who is traveling when the meeting occurs.  What decides who is host and who is guest?  If you are both nomads and you meet at a waterhole, who has been there longer? Does that decide the issue of who is host, who is guest?  Or: who has more food?  Does that decide who is who host, who is guest?  Our language suggests that these are important questions.  Greek does not distinguish between host and guest.

Latin has the same challenge/blessing/difficulty.  The word “hostis” means “stranger” or “host” or “guest.”  When St. Jerome translated the Bible into the language of the common man (that is, Latin, of course), he translated Hebrew “ger” and Greek “xenos” as “hostis.”

In the first five books of the Bible (the Torah, the Pentateuch), Moses deals with the issue of how to treat foreigners with great eloquence and power.  The issue that he deals with has complicated details, but is simple at heart.  There’s US, and there’s THEM: how do we think about them, how do we treat them?  There are some interesting details about behavior, but what Moses comes back to, repeatedly, is simple: remember our experience as strangers, and do not do to THEM what was done to US.  Remember, remember, remember – and sympathize because you remember.  There is an US and there is a THEM, but rule number one about THEM is an appeal to the heart, not a law: remember and sympathize.   Who’s “ger”?  It depends on your perspective. 

It seems to me that this is exactly the same question that Jesus dealt with, and Jesus adopts the same approach as Moses.  The words are a little different, but the question is the same: “Who is my neighbor?”  Jesus, like Moses, doesn’t challenge the difference between US and THEM, between neighbor and stranger.  His approach to the question is not to define the line, and list the rules.  Like Moses, he urges sympathy.  He responds with the story of the Good Samaritan.  In that story, what is clear is that the priest and the Levite on the road do not feel obliged to help the man attacked by bandits, because he is not one of US.  The injured man wants US to be a broad category; he needs help from whoever passes by.  The priest and Levite have a clearly defined and somewhat smaller, somewhat more exclusive, US.  The Samaritan has a broader definition of US.  He understands, hears, feels, the appeal from the victim in the road.  In this simple story, Jesus does the same thing that Moses did: he asks his followers to see the question of US versus THEM through the eyes of the person on the other side of the divide.  Moses says, remember what it’s like to be THEM.  Jesus says, don’t define US from the inside, but from the outside, from the perspective of the needy who need the definition to be broad.

If you want to say, the host should be quick to understand the view of the guest, and the guest should be quick to understand the view of the host, it may be simpler to avoid words that define the host/guest relationship.  Remember what’s like to be a stranger in a strange land (says Moses), and let the issue of need define who has a claim on you (says Jesus). 

To summarize: (1) translators have not used the word “immigrant” to translate “ger” or “xenos” because the word is new.  But (2) “stranger” may still be the best translation, because it makes it a little easier to approach the boundary between US and THEM in a balanced fashion, encouraging each side to understand the other side.  (3) The way we treat strangers/immigrants is startlingly significant in the teaching of both Moses and Jesus.

money -- real issue, but central?

Money

The nation’s major anti-immigration organization, FAIR, focuses on the cost to taxpayers.  They put a lot of effort into this green eye-shade labor, but accountants better than I have scrutinized their work elsewhere.  I offer five responses, not about their worthy details.

1.       Obviously, for many people, if it seems possible to discern what God asks of us, and we come to believe that God has asked us to welcome immigrants, the cost is interesting but not terribly important.  We’ll do it.

2.       Same point, slightly revised. Obviously, for many people, if it seems possible to help good people in real need, and we come to believe that many immigrants fit that description, the cost is interesting but not terribly important.  We’ll do it.

3.       The arguments made about the costs associated with Latino immigration were made about the Irish in the middle of the 19^th century.  While the Irish were fleeing from famine and poverty, and for a generation after the disaster, they (we) were a burden, including an economic burden.  But since then, we have proved ourselves to be a huge benefit to the nation.  So for people who are careful and thoughtful about history, the arguments about cost suddenly seem transparently bogus, unless FAIR can explain the difference between Latino immigrants and Irish immigrants.

4.       The United States is a shrinking country, except for immigration.  Average family size for people born in the USA is already below replacement level.  So Social Security is certain to fail unless we permit immigration.  Assuming for the moment that all of FAIR’s numbers are right, and immigration is a financial drain (I don’t accept it, but assume for the moment), what cost in their whiny list comes close to balancing off the financial catastrophe of destroying Social Security? 

5.       Just Maryland, for the moment: Maryland’s Dream Act is about in-state tuition rates for students who have: (a) settled in Maryland (at least five years), (b) paid taxes for five years (they and/or their parents), (c) shown themselves to be serious students and likely successful citizens by three years in a Maryland high school, earning a high school diploma, and performed successfully in college for two years, earning at least 60 credits.  Maryland taxpayers have already invested in these students for at least five years.  Now, we are two years away from cashing in on the investment, when they enter our workforce with a college degree.  Will we help for the last two years?  Not only justice, but also finance suggests we should!  Isn’t this a no-brainer?

Volunteers NEEDED -- on Maryland campuses

I have organized my ideas about the Dream Act at a website, so that the first ideas are at the front, instead of the most recent ideas -- which is what a blog does.  The website currently has a humungous link: https://sites.google.com/site/dreamactmarginofvictory/

It's the same as the blog, arranged differently.

DEAR WONDERFUL FRIENDS!

I NEED COLLEGE CONTACTS!  

I HAVE SOME HELP IN EVERY REGION OF THE STATE, 

BUT NOT ENOUGH YET!

If you are in college in or near Maryland, and have a heart and a few hours to spare between now and November 6, please let me know, now!  Use the comments box, or send me a message at cavanaughokeefe@gmail.com.

If you know of someone in college in or near Maryland who might help, please let me know, now!   Use the comments box, or send me a message at cavanaughokeefe@gmail.com.

Roots of Racism -- it's out!

The book is out!

The Roots of Racism and Abortion is on Kindle, available for purchase, downloadable in a few seconds.  It’s a re-published e-published book of mine, about eugenics, the master race ideology.  I agonized over it; I wanted to spend ten years improving it, but Betsy objected.  Anyway, as it is, the book explains eugenics, explains its parts, gives examples, points at solutions …

Oddly, when I finished it, I was painfully aware that the weakest chapter is the one on immigration.  I was tempted to delay awhile and write some more, since I am re-publishing it specifically because I am now involved in the Dream Act campaign, working to provide hospitality and welcome to immigrants in Maryland.  But I can’t write an improved chapter; if I start, I’ll write another book.  (Strike “if” – when!)

No one on earth will ever agree with everything in the book.  Not even me; I fussed and argued with the author every page.  It’s about sex and violence and religion and politics; there’s not much in there that isn’t controversial, except Hitler.  I promise it’s got info that will be new to you, ideas that will challenge you, stories that will move you.  If you’re okay with the word “paradigm,” that’s a relief, because what I really want to do, and expect to do, is cause a paradigm shift.

Why does it help to understand eugenics if you want to welcome immigrants?

Eugenics is about the drive to control the future of the human race by social control of fertility.  The idea is, the next generation should be a new and improved human race.  We can breed tomatoes, so let’s breed humans.  The key to a breeding program, generally, is simple (before tinkering with genes): “more from the fit, less from the unfit” – so said the eugenicists of the past century. 

Identifying the unfit – that’s the heart of an effective eugenics program!  You can do it one by one, but it’s much faster to go after broad social groups.  So eugenicists described in the 1980s how they would change family size all over Latin America using soap operas.  The first time I heard that plan, I was skeptical, but that was 30 years ago, and now the work is done.  Still, there are too many Latinos down there, they say.  Population control is taking hold, but the fight isn’t over.  And in the mean time, the drive to lower Latino population needs a backstop program.  Population control will not work well if population pressure is alleviated by migration.

What was that?  I didn't understand a word you said.

Okay, let me slow down a little.  Sometimes when you are arguing with someone about immigration, they fuss about Latinos coming here and getting on welfare.  So you work with that a bit, and talk about jobs programs.  But then the same person, without any shame, fusses about Latinos coming here and taking jobs away from “real” Americans (born here, I think that means). Okay, if you don’t want them to come and not-work, and you don’t want them to come and work, then the truth is, you don’t want them to come, period.  That was a lot of wasted time, but maybe we’re getting somewhere. So then we can talk about what’s wrong with them coming.  Does this fussy person want them to stay where they are – in the middle of a civil war (that we had a hand in), or in poverty (that we helped cause)? If you press on that, patiently, you deal with a lot of confusion, but more often than not it turns out that Mr. Holy Borders doesn’t want them here, but he doesn’t want them there, either.  He doesn’t want them to be.  He supports ZPG or NPG (zero population growth or negative population growth).  There's nothing personal about it, but he does think there are too many people getting born, and more specifically that there are too many people getting born in -- say -- El Salvador.   

Immigration is backup for depopulation.

Read the book.  Kindle, $3.  Tell a thousand friends to get it.  Tell a million enemies to get it.

(If you don’t do Kindle, let me know.)

Thanks, Joel and Michelle

two wingnuts, one knocked over

I have to back up to take care of work I set aside for several days.  I have a happy task, that I’m getting to a few days late.

It may seem odd at the beginning of a campaign to thank the people who stepped forward to help.  That will be more appropriate when Maryland passes the Dream Act, and it is clear that the people working to secure the support of people who pray-then-vote provided the margin of victory.  But I can’t wait.

I am so pleased with the folks who have stepped forward to help!  We are just starting, but already it looks great to me! 

Joel, thanks!  I was worried and in pain, and you came by and got me laughing for hours.  That was a real gift!  I know you hate being the Jewish kid, but you did clarify an immensely important detail about our dream about the Dream Act.  I have decided to pursue Biblically oriented voters.  Does that push me to the far right of the political spectrum?  NO! says Joel. 

Joel saw what I was doing and seized it with both hands.  I asked if he was okay talking to Christians about the Bible.  Sure, he says.  “I don’t know the fine points, but I understand the high points.”  (He’s read SparkNotes?) He continued, “I didn’t know that the Catholic Church said immigration was a right.  That’s cool!  I really like that.”  (That’s not in SparkNotes.)

Talking to folks on the other side of a divide is the job.  If we talk to people who agree with us about everything important, who applaud our work, we are wasting our time.  We need to get out amongst folks who are going to be upset to hear from us.  That’s the assignment!

I am sure that some yahoos are going to tell Joel or me or both or at least each other that someone is gonna go to hell because this Jewish kid is asking them to check the Bible before they vote.  Hey – if you can’t stand having a Jew suggest you check a hot topic in the Bible, take it up with the Boss.

So nightmare one has passed!  That’s not a law; it was a potentially crippling defect.  I do want to talk about the Bible, with some detail and care.  I don’t relish becoming a right-wing-nut, or being seen as one; I am a left-wing-nut.  Joel, don’t let go!

To pass this law, we will need people cooperating from opposite ends of the world.  I am grateful to you for helping to make that cooperation visible and clear.

And Michelle!  Is it true that you auditioned to make ads for FedEx? Thanks for the flat and absolute guarantee that this work will not get boring, ever.  At about the same time that I pulled you into the immigration fight, someone said something stupid about female anatomy, and you went off.  It wasn’t that you were gonna do anything inappropriate or prove your point in public or anything, but you wanted everybody to know that you had one.  24 point type, red letters.  Hoo-boy. 

I am hugely grateful to you for the way you handled the remark about home schooling.  You said things that could be insulting; she called you on it; you apologized in less than a nano-second.  To make this campaign work, we are going to need to push back against the really destructive habits of savage incivility that dominate political discourse today.  Civility does NOT mean being ultra-careful to be bland; it means paying respectful attention to people, especially people who are different from you.  To make this thing work, we will have to apologize when we make mistakes.  Guaranteed: we will make mistakes.

(Michelle, I'm not going to bother getting a definition of "bland" for you.  You will never understand it.  Some things are just too foreign.)

We did not have a formal training session the evening the two of you visited.  But we did cover the two main topics of training.  We are going to reach across divides, and we will be civil.

Thanks, Joel and Michelle!  I am a very lucky man to know you!

Recruit!  We have some campus coverage in every part of the state, but we don’t have every campus, by a long shot.

immigration problems then and now

In the middle of the 19^th century, there was a widespread concern about immigration.  At time, concern was focused on German and Irish Catholics.  But in time, all the complaints disappeared.  It would be interesting to measure how long it took to resolve the complaints, and I don’t know how to do that.  Did it take two generations?  What’s clear is that the complaints were resolved a long time ago, and are now a source of humor, not an on-going fight.

The Germans had to deal with an upsurge of new prejudice when the United States went to war with Germany.  But I don’t think that it is fair to say that this bias showed that resistance to German immigration had not ended.  Of course, I don’t know whether anyone can ever write rules for prejudice; that’s a fool’s errand. 

Some people still tell ethnic jokes about Irish drunks.  In my experience, most of the people who tell the jokes are – well, not Irish drunks, exactly, but drunk Irish.  In other words, the jokes don’t touch a raw nerve. 

Some people argue that there is still strong anti-Catholic prejudice in the country.  To be sure, anti-clericalism remains, inside and outside the Church.  But – to take one example – if six of the nine Supreme Court Justices happen to be Catholic today, I just don’t think that anti-Catholic sentiment has to be a national concern.  We’re doing fine.  The bishops and millions of Catholics and other religious people (including me) are concerned about a recent spate of laws and decisions that limit religious liberty.  Many people seem to believe that secularism is the same as neutrality, and so we are embarked on a robust debate.  But I don’t think that’s anti-Catholicism.

The anti-immigrant prejudices of the 19^th century are not a problem today.  Somehow, they got worked out.  So I would argue that whatever complaints and concerns that anti-immigrant forces want to make today, when those arguments are the same as the arguments from 150 years ago, we can set them aside -- not that the problems are magically solved, but they aren't arguments against immigration.  As a nation, we solved those problems once before.  There’s work to do, but stopping immigration was not the solution then, and isn’t the solution now.

As I understand it, the complaints of the anti-immigrant Native American Party, or the “Know-Nothings,” included: (1) a dramatic rise in crime, including murder, (2) a dramatic rise in welfare costs, (3) alcohol, (4) non-English speakers, (5) a weakening of a national consensus about values, specifically Biblical teaching.  Their proposed solutions included: (1) restricting immigration, especially from Catholic countries, (2) permitting only native-born Americans to hold political offices, (3) a 21 year wait for citizenship (and the right to vote), (4) restricting public school teaching positions to Protestants and mandate daily Bible readings, (5) restrict the sale of liquor, especially on Sunday, and (6) restrict the use of languages other than English.

The problems that I hear anti-immigrant groups like FAIR (the nation’s leading anti-immigration group) include: (1) violence, (2) welfare costs, including hospital and education costs, (3) drugs, (4) a weakening of American values, especially the work ethic and respect for the law, (5) a loss of control of our borders, making it easier for terrorists to enter the country, (6) non-English speakers, and (7) reverse discrimination.  Solutions: (1) restrict immigration, especially from Mexico, (2) fight against any proposals for amnesty, (3) arrest and deport illegal aliens, (4) prosecute employers who hire illegal aliens, (4) make English the official language of the country and end the practice of using bi-lingual signs, (5) end reverse discrimination (that is, end affirmative action), (6) promote birth control aggressively.

So what complaints are new?  Crime, welfare, language: no change.  Alcohol then, drugs now: a slight change.  Bible then, American values (based implicitly on the Bible) now: a slight change. 

The changes in proposed solutions are interesting.  Most importantly, anti-immigration activists 150 years ago failed to restrict immigration by law; today, they have the law, and King Canute sits in the sand ordering the tide not to rise.  Since they have the law, they can call immigrants “illegal,” and try to have them deported.  Sheriffs, not vigilantes, try to reverse the tide.  And they can try to go after employers.

One change that fascinates me is about voting.  Back then, immigration opponents said explicitly that they wanted to make newcomers wait for 21 years before they got any political power (that is, the vote).  Buh-duh.  The same is going on today, but it is not in the open.

FAIR does not have a position on population control, as far as I know.  They are linked to ZPG and even NPG – organizations that promote zero population control and negative population control, but they have NOT endorsed their positions, as far as I know.  The question of how anti-immigration groups handle population control may be a very interesting question to watch.  In the 1850s, the nativists splintered over the issue of slavery.  Today, the nativists could splinter over the issue of abortion.

In general, the key complaints and concerns 160 years ago and today are about the same.  That doesn’t mean that they aren’t real issues, but it does mean that we can solve them without closing the borders.  We have seen this before.  Immigration, like birth, does bring problems.  But immigration, like birth, brings far more blessings than burdens!

Choose, Maryland: de Sousa, or the Know-Nothings!



Plaque for Mathias de Sousa



Come on, Maryland!

Maryland has a rich and wonderful geography and history. Geography: we have ocean, mountains, Deep South, Midwest-like rolling hills and farms, a great bay, and Baltimore. No one else can match that diversity! And our history is a similar tangle.

In 1641, Mathias de Sousa -- who had worked for several years as an indentured servant of Fr. Andrew White, one of the founders of the colony -- was elected to the Maryland Assembly. De Sousa was the first African American to serve in a legislature in North America. (I don’t know about Latin America.) A great moment for Maryland!

In 1645, Protestants from Virginia invaded Maryland, arrested Fr. White for practicing priestcraft, and sent him back to England in chains. He was arrested for celebrating Mass, not for integration; but it was his faith led to specific actions. When was the next African American legislator in the North America? Reconstruction? Not a great moment for Maryland.

In 1664, Maryland pioneered another part of American history: it was the first colony to ban inter-racial marriage. The law is shameful, but the fact that it was passed would seem to indicate that there were inter-racial marriages taking place. That is, you don’t pass laws against things that aren’t happening: there are no laws against raping Martians. Anyway, whatever the background of loving activity, the law was not a great moment.

In 1789, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, they incorporated ideas pioneered in Maryland and developed more fully in Pennsylvania: the First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Another great moment for Maryland!

In 1850, President Zachary Taylor died in office, and Millard Fillmore became president. Fillmore, generally listed among the worst presidents in our history, was not re-elected at the end of that term. But in the following election, he joined the American Party, also called the Know-Nothings. The Know-Nothing movement was a reaction to German and Irish Catholic immigration, and the problems that followed, including a dramatic increase in crime and welfare costs. The American Party (formerly the Native American Party) was anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic. Fillmore became their presidential candidate in 1856. Fortunately, he lost, dramatically. In fact, he carried only one state. Uh-oh. So that was another bad moment for schizophrenic Maryland.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the eugenics movement (improving the human race by social control of reproduction) was successful in passing laws affecting three issues: miscegenation, compulsory sterilization of the so-called “feeble-minded,” and immigration. The new wave of anti-miscegenation laws strengthened the patchwork of old anti-black laws. The new laws generally banned marriage between whites and non-whites. The point was not so much to keep slaves and their descendants in place, as to maintain the purity of the “white race.” The anti-immigration laws were a matter for national legislation, not state law. Sterilization laws, providing legal mechanisms for ensuring that targeted individuals would lose their ability to reproduce, were proposed and passed in most states. Maryland was NOT among the states passing eugenic sterilization laws, and that is a reason for modest pride.

The work of the eugenics movement is still being dismantled. The anti-miscegenation laws are gone, and the sterilization laws are gone, although abuse continues informally. Now, racially charged anti-immigration laws are under attack, and Maryland is a battleground again.

Come on, Maryland! Which way will we go this time? Are we proud to be the home of Mathias de Sousa, or will we vote for racial bitterness again? Are we proud of Fr. White, or will we support the Know-Nothing position again? We did resist some of the eugenics movement: can we throw out the remnants of that great evil?

Go, Maryland! Claim a proud heritage, and vote for hospitality! Support Maryland’s Dream Act!

Why do I care about immigration -- Antonio's story

Antonio is compact young man, short with a light build, maybe 5' 2", 110 pounds. He has black hair grown short and flat on his head, like Caesar's busts; it doesn’t change the shape of his head. He walks quietly, tilted a little to one side as if he is dodging something. Which he is, I think -- he is dodging scrutiny. He doesn't look people in the eye, because he’s hiding.

He was a ninth grader when he started my Academic Reading class in August, but he was reading on a fourth grade level. He wrote slowly, in short sentences, with a small vocabulary and troubled grammar. He answered politely and carefully when called on, but never volunteered anything. And the sense that I had watching him walk was confirmed when he sat down: he hid behind the student in front of him, or beside him, depending on where I was. It would be easy to overlook him; he worked hard to be overlooked.

He hid, but during the year, he did his work with tremendous tenacity. He never skipped anything, although he usually finished several minutes after everyone else. His handwriting was slow, but curiously beautiful. It was not calligraphy; it was standard script. But it very precise; each letter was clear and unmistakable.

When I pointed out mistakes, he looked at me with no expression on his face, so that I wondered if he understood what I was saying, or if he resented my fussy criticism about impossible English spelling or grammar or idioms. I was a little slow to realize that although he looked at me without any expression, he never made the same mistake again.

When I called on him, he always hesitated before he spoke, and he always responded as briefly as possible without being rude. For some weeks, all I noticed was that he was slow and brief. I wondered if he was thinking in Spanish and translating his ideas into English. But then I realized that his speech was like his writing -- he spoke in complete sentences, short but to the point, with nothing extra but nothing missing.

We measured reading levels five times during the year. Each time, he had made very solid progress, and he finished the year reading at an eleventh grade level. His writing was similarly improved, with appropriate complexity. I did not see any change in his speaking.

The first time I saw him smile was in January or February. I taught in a public school, and I was careful to support parents, and not to promote ideas that might conflict with the ideas and values my students learned at home. I am comfortable with a remark attributed to St. Francis: “Preach always; when necessary, use words.” Still, by mid-winter, we had all gotten to know each other's views about many things, and I answered straight when a student asked me what I thought about illegal immigration. More than half the class was Latino, and a few had legal status; but the status of others was not so clear, in a situation where a lack of clarity is actually pretty transparent. I said that my thinking about it was shaped by my religious views, and that my understanding was that the Bible says repeatedly that God protects widows and orphans and strangers -- that the word “stranger” meant “immigrant.” I said that I was deeply moved by the words in Matthew’s Gospel, and I paraphrased them: “I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me a drink, I was an immigrant and you welcomed me: meet my Father. I was hungry and you didn’t feed me, I was thirsty and you didn’t give a drink, I was an immigrant and you didn’t welcome me: go to hell.” Antonio’s head popped out of hiding, and the corners of his mouth were just barely turned up, his eyes just barely lit up. “Just barely” was enough; that was a real smile -- a million dollar smile, one of the great treasures of my teaching career.

Several months later, we had a discussion in class about college. The counseling department was squeezing decisions about the fall schedule out of everyone, and everyone was talking about life plans. I knew what most of them had in mind, but I ran through the whole class, asking each student where they expected to go to college. I was careful about the students who were planning to go into the military or a career right after high school -- but every student spoke. When I got to Antonio, I just sailed right into the default question of the day, without adjusting. By then, I had figured out that he was among the most determined and disciplined and promising students I would ever teach, and I was getting ready to launch into a spiel about the scholarships that are available at the Ivy League schools, and at many of the best colleges in the country . For students without much money, the best schools can cost about the same as community colleges -- next to nothing -- if you get in. I was ready to talk about what students can do in tenth and eleventh grade to help strengthen college applications. I was expecting him to say he was planning to go to Montgomery College, and I was ready to praise MC but then argue that he should apply at a list of other schools.

He looked me right in the eye and said carefully, “I’m not going to college.”

I was shocked: “Why not?”

I think he almost laughed at the expression on my face. I think he understood my shock and accepted it as a compliment. He kept eye contact, lifted his chin, smiled a broad smile, and waited for me to figure it out.

He is in hiding: he takes some risks, but he is careful.  I can’t think of it without searing pain.  He has accepted it. I don’t.

Kids get it -- what's our problem?

Bishops from all over Latin America met a few weeks ago, to talk about immigration. They said a lot of powerful things, but one odd remark struck me. They said (again) that throwing immigrants out is wrong in a whole list of ways.  One item on their list was that it damages Americans who lose a chance to be hospitable. Most of what they said was easy to follow, but that one sounded a little strange. Still, I think they are right.

Right now, we are in a recession, or at least we are near one, so Americans are not feeling as optimistic as usual. But still, compared to most of the world throughout all of history, we are fantastically wealthy. We may not always have jelly, but we always have bread. We don’t always like the people under it, but we can always find a roof. In fact, we have cars to complain about, and computers with sticky keys, and pools that need cleaning. We have a lot of stuff, and we have numerous complaints about every single thing we have -- so we have a lotta lotta complaints.

Jesus said that when he shows up at the door (disguised, usually) he comes to set us free. He comes to give us joy. And it’s pretty simple stuff, often. If I have the pool to myself, I see leaves and smell chlorine. But if I let a kid use it, he screams and splashes until I remember what a cool thing this is.

Just to make that clear, I’ll say it again. If I eat a piece of candy, I enjoy it for 30 seconds or so. If I give it to a kid, I enjoy his smile for a long time.

So here we are in this vastly wealthy country, moaning and groaning. And 12 million people show up at the door, saying they want some of what we’ve got. If we share it, we enjoy it. If we throw them out, we probably get to keep the stuff, but we lose the joy that should go with it.

We are moaning and groaning about tough times. 12 million times, Jesus has knocked on our door and offered to show us how to enjoy what we have.

The bishops are right. If we refuse to be hospitable, the guest is hurt, maybe, but the host is in a helluva mess, a World of Hurt.

Just Get in Line and Obey the Law!

If you live outside the USA, and you want to become a U.S. citizen, you can just get in line, and obey the law. Right?

I started talking to people about immigration pretty recently; I’m a new-comer in the debate. This angry advice to "get in line" sounded reasonable to me, so I took a look to see how it works. I try to avoid anger and sarcasm, but I failed when I looked at the USCIS website.  I’ll explain a little about what I found, but please take a look for yourself.

If you want to visit the USA but not stay, you need a visa; but we want to understand immigration, so for now, let’s skip the info on temporary visits and focus on naturalization and citizenship.

 If you want to immigrate -- to leave the country where you were born or where you are living now, and move to the USA, and stay -- there are just two steps. You apply for “naturalization,” or permanent residence status. That’s also called “getting a Green Card,” because when you finish the process and are approved, you get a card that says you can stay in the country and work legally, and the card is -- guess what? -- green. And after you get that, you wait a few years and then apply for citizenship.  It’s not complicated.

So start at the website for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It’s at http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/. Then click on “Green Card,” and there’s the info. 

There are a lot of different ways to get a Green Card.  The list is broken into four user-friendly categories, so you can figure it out quickly. The four are: (1) through your family, (2) through a job, (3) through refugee or asylum status, or (4) assorted other.

#1 - through family. Do you have family here? If so, the process will take years and years, depending on your nation of origin, but you have a chance. The wait-time depends on your relationship with an American citizen and on your country of origin, but there is a line for you to get into.  It will take years, but you can "get in line." 

If you are not related to an American citizen, let’s see what’s next.

#2 - through job. Are you a physician? Afghan translator? No?  Well, look over the list. You say you can do anything on a farm, anything in construction, anything on a car?  That’s admirable, but won’t get you a Green Card.  How about nuclear physicist? No?  You say you’re a fast learner with a strong back? That’s admirable, too, but that won’t get you a Green Card, either. How about the Panama Canal -- did you work there? No? Well, check the list.

The job list is highly specialized, and most people do not qualify.  So if you don't have a close relative and don't have one of these specialized skills, let's see what's next.

#3 - refugee or asylum seeker. Has anyone been trying to kill you, or has your family been starving for a long time? If your government has been trying to kill you, and you can prove it, and your government is NOT an ally of the United States, we can talk about this.  Gangs, you say? Sorry, that doesn’t count. But the gangs are financed by the government, you say? If you can prove it, we can talk.  You say they’re not killing you, just chopping off your genitals? Sorry, that doesn’t count, because the U.S. government tries to avoid religious debates about customs in other countries.  In general, if you’re getting shot at, we want to express sincere condolences, but millions of people are in the same boat, and we can’t take them all here. So apply, but don’t hang around the embassy too long. Remember: whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you strong!

#4 - other. Are you a Haitian refugee? How about an American Indian born in Canada? Check the list; there are a lot of little niches in the law.

None of this helps you? Don’t feel bad: most of the world is like that. 

To summarize, struggling to avoid anger and sarcasm: when people say that migrants who want to come to the USA should just get in line, it is clear that they have not looked at the process.  There's no line.

Who are those they's?

I have friends on both sides of the health care debate. They hate each other, with blood-curdling passion. Each says, about the other, at least these five things: "they" are (1) stupid, (2) hypocritical, (3) dishonest, (4) violent, and (5) cynical about the poor. The insults diverge (Socialists, Limbaugh ...), but not right away. I won't hide my position; it's the same as the USCCB's.

This kind of angry polarization is destructive for everybody. I think of pro-lifers, who usually aim for 51%. You can make short-term tactical gains with 51%, but long-term strategic changes require 68%. Divisive rhetoric will never get there.

Every legislator and activist in the nation should examine Kevin Durant's approach. I don't mean his lay-ups, although that's good too. He manages to be incredibly ambitious, and still be a gentleman, even facing LeBron James.

So what's the impact of today's Supreme Court's decision on the Dream Act? No direct impact. But when anger and bitterness and hatred go up, the chances for the Dream Act go down. Generosity and curiosity lead to hospitality; fear and greed lead to hostility. Tone matters.

Which way would you go?

I have a classmate who devoted her life to development work in a village in Mexico. About ten years ago, I asked her what she thought about NAFTA, a trade agreement that made it easier to trade between participating nations. I expected her to support it, but her response was cautious.

John, she said, I did not follow the debate carefully. I can only tell you what happened in my little village. Most of my neighbors are subsistence farmers. They raise their food, make their own clothes, build their own homes. They grow some corn that is not their own food. They used to sell it, and that was almost the only cash in the community. But NAFTA meant that corn from Iowa and other Midwest states was available here. They could not compete with that. They still raise almost everything they need. But if they need a new tool, a new hammer, that requires cash. There isn't any cash here. So everyone between age 15 and 50 left the village. Every one. We have young people and old people, but no one of working age.

They all left, to get work. Almost all of them went north.

Where else could they go?

Lesson from Prohibition?

Opponents of immigration often refer to their reasonable and legitimate concern about criminals making their way into an open society -- OUR proud and open society. I understand the concern, but perhaps I am missing something obvious here. To me, it to seems obvious that when 12 million good people are treated as criminals, it gets harder, not easier, to catch real criminals. Wasn't that one of the lessons of Prohibition? What am I missing here?

Gen Grant responds to Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural

In his oft-quoted 2nd Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln said that we cannot criticize the justice of God if a drop of blood is spilled in war for every drop of blood spilled in slavery. Not many theologians today would make that point that way. But some years after Lincoln's speech, Gen/Pres Grant said something similar in his Memoirs. He said that the war that he won was caused by the evil of the Mexican War. Lincoln said the war was a just punishment for what the nation did to black slaves; Grant said it was punishment for what the nation did to Mexico. Grant had fought in Mexico ("in the halls of Montezuma"), and had a right to his opinion. But he thought the war was unjustifiable -- was a greedy theft.

In several steps over several years, we took the land that later became TX, NM, AZ, CA, NV, and parts of CO and UT. Of course, they (Mexicans) weren't using the land much. We saw work/opportunity there, and we took it. Was that justifiable?

health care and immigration

In the dusty corners of history ... Most people did not notice and/or do not remember why the Catholic bishops opposed the health care reform bill a couple of years ago. It was not because they oppose the idea of universal health care; the bishops have pressed hard for that longer than any other party around. They opposed this version because it had three flaws they considered critical. (1) It pays for some abortions; (2) it does not have a conscience clause; and (3) IT DOES NOT COVER 12,000,000 IMMIGRANTS.

Why the passion?

Why is the Bible so passionate about welcoming strangers/immigrants? I was slow to catch on, but the reason is simple. The portable take-away lesson from the Holocaust was: "Never again!" Portable take-away from slavery in Egypt: "Welcome strangers and never abuse them!"

Let them eat banana bread

Aunt Mary again

My Aunt Mary worked for the CIA, and had friends who worked for the State Department. One of her friends -- call him Gerald so we have a name to use -- was stationed in Colombia at the beginning of his career in the 1950s. He loved Bogota, and went for long walks through the city, talking to people. Part of his job was to understand Colombia, and sometimes he found it hard to tell the difference between work and play. He loved what he was doing, whichever it was.

One beautiful day, there was a demonstration in the streets, and protesters marched past the American Embassy on the way to government offices. All the staff watched, and chatted a bit. At one point, there was some kind of incident that made the march stop for a while, and so it was easy for the American spectators to hear the chanting and singing. They didn’t hear a snatch from this group and a scrap from that group; they only heard the demonstrators stalled in front of the embassy, singing clearly. “Listen!” said the military attache. “They’re singing the Internationale!” (The “Internationale” was a French protest song that became the anthem of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. If the Colombian protesters were singing Communist songs, that would be interesting during the Cold War.)

But Gerald spoke up. “No, that’s not the Internationale. That’s the Colombian national anthem!” Everybody turned around to stare at him.

Young Gerald, the junior member of the staff, was the only person in the embassy who recognized the national anthem of their hosts.

Sometimes you listen to Americans fussing about Latino immigrants, and you realize that the fussers have no idea why there is any emigration going on. Why are all these people moving, anyway? There is a Marie Antoinette “let them eat cake” feeling about it. (Sometimes.) But when I watch Latino friends, I don’t see them get angry about it. They are used to it. After all, if you want to explain it to an American (an Anglo Norte Americano, that is -- “Latinos” are Americans), where do you start?

The Self-righteous Banana Appeal

Aunt Mary was a proper Bostonian. She was very funny, very smart, very sophisticated -- and more than a little intimidating. So I remember things she said even when they made no sense to me at the time. She was a liberal Democrat who worked for the CIA, focused on Latin America. I guess that many people would consider that impossible, but she lived with the apparent contradictions for decades. She said that there were analysts and there were decision-makers, and sometimes they talked to each other. She did not attack her superiors, but she did not defend them either. I had the impression that she -- like my father, a pioneering astrophysicist who defended some controversial theories -- believed firmly that facts triumph in the end, and collecting solid data was worthwhile even when most people ignored it for a time.

I remember a story she told that made her laugh and shake her head. I did not understand the story when she told it, but I did understand from her tone that the story was true, but hard to believe. When she was studying law (at Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy), there was a case about Latin America that they read. It was an anti-trust case, and the statement of facts (the stipulations) that both sides accepted was startling. An American company wanted more land in Central America. They had trouble getting it, so they started a war between two nations. When the war was over, the national boundaries had shifted to accommodate the company. The case before the court did NOT ask whether it was legal to start wars to get rich, nor whether it was legal for Americans to start wars between two sovereign nations. Just: was this a violation of anti-trust laws?

I do not know whether Aunt Mary was permanently amazed by the insanity of law, the weirdness of the court, or the stunning arrogance of the company.

I think that the case was American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909). But I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know how many times American companies have started wars elsewhere and then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the right and wrong of a boundary dispute between two sovereign nations. 

I do understand why some Latinos find it hard to swallow an American demand that they must respect our sacred borders. Squabbling about borders is one thing, but invoking God to condemn law-breakers who dare to cross our line in the sand -- well, I think Aunt Mary would laugh at the ignorance and foolishness of it.

Paraphrasing the "Magnificat"

Today, the Catholic Church recalls and celebrates a visit. Mary, newly pregnant, walked a couple of days to visit her cousin, an older woman, who was six months pregnant. When Mary got to Elizabeth’s house, she sang a song that we still have.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, had a wonderful life in many ways, but had some extraordinarily hard times. When she was a teenager, she had some kind of experience of a spiritual visit, in which an angel told her that the Creator of the universe would like her to be the mother of his child. She said yes. Exactly what happened next is entirely private between Mary and God, but she became pregnant. At the time, she was engaged but not married, and there was a scandal in the air. She got through it, but it must have been painful as well as joyful.

Her fiance, later husband, was a carpenter. When the baby was born, the king of that region made a serious effort to locate and kill the child, because of a prophecy about a child who would take the king’s throne. So the family became fugitives -- a day laborer who didn’t know the language of the country where they fled, a wife with a baby who did not resemble the father, and a child wanted by the police. They would never have been allowed across the Rio Grande; if they have fled this way, they would have come across the desert by night. Again, we don’t know any details, and they were probably very happy in many ways, but the situation must have included some amazing pain.

Mary’s husband died before she did; widowed, she stayed with her son, and supported his work. He got in trouble with the law again, and was eventually arrested, tortured, and executed -- while she watched. Some of the best art in the world was inspired by the pain that artists imagine she must have experienced.

Despite all this pain, what we have from her today is this love song. She sang it in Aramaic, and then it was written down in Greek, and people sang it for 10-15 centuries in Latin, and now people sing it in every language in the world. The beauty of it works in translation. Here’s a loose paraphrase.

“My whole heart sings when I think about the person I know and love. If you come to know my heart, you will know and love him, too, because all the beauty of my heart is about him. Just hearing his name thrills me; it is the most beautiful utterance in the world.

“I am the most fortunate girl who ever lived, because he loves me. Probably every girl feels that way, but I am different, because he is different. I am a nobody, a teenager from a hick town in hills on the other side of nowhere, but I know that for all the rest of human history, people will know me, will know my name, will know my story, and will know that I was the luckiest girl ever. That’s not because I am anything special by myself; it is because he chose me. He made me somebody, forever.

“Let me tell you about him. He is generous, and takes care of everyone he meets who is in need. But he does not just throw money at them; he lifts them up and makes each person feel like a prince. He is in fact rich and powerful, but he does not hang around with other rich and powerful people; in fact, when he loses his temper -- which is rare, but impressive when it happens -- it is almost always with rich people who are arrogant. He can’t stand being around them. He has chosen to live with the poor of the world. That’s one of the things about him that I love best, one of the things about him that makes the sound of his name so, so sweet to me.

“He is loyal to his friends. One of the reasons that he is good to me is that he made a promise to my ancestors that he would take care of our family. He made that promise -- not weeks ago, not years ago, not decades ago, but generations and generations ago -- and he kept it.

“Forever, his name is the most beautiful utterance in the world.”

Knights of Columbus and immigration

It is perplexing that one of the leaders of the opposition to the Maryland Dream Act is a Catholic politician whose biography includes membership in the Knights of Columbus. It’s a bit like having the president of the Lions Club poke you in the eye with a stick.

The Knights of Columbus is a Catholic service organization. They don’t drive little cars like the Shriners, but they have some wild feathers and some nifty swords. Toys and jokes aside, they serve. Their best-known charitable work in Maryland is raising funds to help kids with disabilities. But they started in the late 19^th century as a support group for Catholic immigrants.

The Knights of Columbus was originally founded by a diocesan priest in Connecticut, Fr. Michael J. McGivney, to support immigrants. It is perplexing when a Knight is a leader of an organization set up expressly to oppose immigrants’ claims.

The Knights of Columbus describe themselves as “practical Catholics,” meaning that they put their faith into practice. It is perplexing when a Knight works against immigrants who are mostly Catholic.

The Knights of Columbus are completely loyal to the institutional church -- to the Pope, the bishops, the priests who lead the Church. It is perplexing when a Knight works against immigrants rights when the Church has made service to immigrants a high priority, internationally and nationally and locally.

The Knights of Columbus have always held Mary, the mother of Jesus, in high esteem, and have supported awareness of the different shrines related to Mary. The organization’s magazine, Columbia, is loaded with invitations to go on pilgrimages to Marian shrines, and reports about pilgrimages to Lourdes and Fatima and Guadalupe. In America, the most significant shrine related to Mary is in Mexico, where there is an image of the “Virgin of Guadalupe.” In this beautiful image cherished since 1531, it is hard to tell whether Mary is from Judea or from Central America. This image of solidarity with poor native Americans was a key to the evangelization of America. It is perplexing when a Knight rejects this heritage of solidarity with Latin American brothers and sisters.

Columbus did not speak English. He was from southern Europe -- a Latin European.

I don’t think that this prominent Knight has decided not to pay any attention to the clear teaching of the Bible, of Jesus Christ himself, of the Church throughout the ages, of the past several Popes, of the bishops today, of the bishops and priests of Maryland. I don’t think he means to walk away from the work of Fr. McGivney. I’m pretty sure he just never thought about it.

Brother! Can we put an end to this scandal?

all the grimy little uns

In 2012, the Catholic Church in the United States is crucified between two thieves.  That's not such a bad place to be, given our history, our roots, our future, our sign, our nourishment, our heroes, our Lord.  Still, it's fun to fuss.

On one hand, there's an administration that has demanded that all employers provide insurance for contraception and sterilization and chemically induced abortion.  The Church objects that this requirement is a violation of their conscience and also of a truce that has been in place for 30 years.  On the other hand, there's a political party that has blocked all efforts to accept 12 million facts on the ground: undocumented immigrants.  The Church objects that inhospitality is a violation of the nation's conscience, and a transformation of our national identity.

Dear Lord, protect the unknown unnamed unnumbered unwanted unloved unborn, and also the undocumented unwashed unfed unemployed uprooted unwanted illegals. Teach us to cherish and protect all the grimy little Uns you have placed in our lives.

the generous desert

Forty years ago, I went into the desert in New Mexico with a friend, Dave Gaetano. It was our second foray into the beauty of the Southwest. This time, we went into the canyon of the Rio Chama, northeast of Santa Fe, in Abiquiu. Abiquiu itself is a handful of houses and a store sprinkled lightly along a highway. Several miles away, there was a small sign, perhaps six inches by ten, hunched low to the ground, with an arrow pointing west along a track to “Christ in the Desert Monastery.” The road goes west a mile or two, then it tips over an edge and feels its way down and down into the canyon, then turns north again, and goes another ten miles or so to a dead end at the monastery. We went to the end, then backed up a mile and set up camp on a hill between the river and the extravagantly colored canyon walls.

We arrived there on June 24, which is on the liturgical calendar as the birthday of John the Baptist, six months and a day before his cousin’s birthday. I stayed there 40 days (Dave left after a few weeks to see family in Wisconsin). In 1972, the Gospel of the day on my 40th and last day was about the beheading of John the Baptist. I believed then (and now) that the time was blessed.

I did not have any agenda. What was on my mind was that Jesus invited us to call God “Father.” I wanted to give that invitation time to take root.

That summer, there were three monks at the fledgling monastery: Father Aelred, Father Gregory, and Brother Anthony. There was a wonderful family attached to the monastery, sharing their life: Priscilla and Bob Bunker and their children. There were assorted guests coming and going, including a couple of young men who had been there for months, stroking their beards and speaking slowly, but flashing into clear laughter. There was a man I never spoke with, although his attitude was a vibrant detail of my experience there: a probing testing doubting Thomas figure, who came to Mass in the monastery chapel and leaned against the wall, one foot crossed over and toed up, arms folded, turned facing not toward the altar but sideways toward the congregation, with an expression of skepticism -- a permanent expression, as far as I knew.

Father Gregory had a beautiful voice; when he sang the Psalms, they were seriously and completely sung. He was a Princeton grad, but a man of depth and thought and wisdom; when he preached, he knew whom and what he was talking about. One Psalm and sermon of his stirred my soul, far past the testing probe of Thomas’s quick-cleansing questioning eyes. “What return shall I make to the Lord,” Gregory sang, “for His goodness to me? The cup of salvation I will take up, and call upon His name.”

What return can we possibly make to God, who doesn’t need anything we have, who gave us everything we have, who restored it all to us after we tossed it away carelessly? Our response to God’s gifts cannot be a matter of justice; we cannot reciprocate in a balanced way. We cannot deal with God in the way we want, with justice and equality, giving and receiving without calculation but nonetheless with approximate tit for tat. Imagine trying: “Thank you for the world; have a well-warmed worm.” So what do we do? Just give up? Take everything we can take, mutter thanks once or twice, and go on our way? Gregory's response: forget about justice, and aim higher. God is generous, and we can be generous in return. Give, give, just give -- to God and to his children -- not because it is owed, but because your heart has overflowed.

Thank you, Gregory. Thank you, desert. Thank you, skeptic. Thank you, Lord.

dusty aching feet

Holy Thursday

During the liturgy for Holy Thursday, Catholics recall and celebrate the “Last Supper,” the last time Jesus ate with his followers and friends before he was arrested and executed. They celebrated Passover together, then he went out to become both priest and victim at a new Passover celebration.

One detail of that celebration was that Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. The point was simple: he serves, we should serve. But this year, I was struck anew by the specifics of his service. We don’t wash anyone else’s feet much in our culture. We wash our own feet. People get pedicures. There’s some interpersonal foot-washing in hospitals and nursing homes, for people who can’t bathe themselves. That’s about it.

In Jesus’ culture, people walked more, and wore sandals that let dust and grime get to their feet a lot more. And he lived in a land with less pavement, less meadow, more dusty desert. I don’t know many people who walk through dusty deserts.

The service that Jesus modeled was not meant to be culture specific. We should help others, with open-hearted generosity, meeting the needs that we see.

And yet, I do know some people with dusty aching feet.

Lord, have mercy.

Why care about immigration? family story ...

Irish immigrants had a rough time, but don’t always remember it that way.

My great-great-grandfather, John O’Keefe, came to the United States because of the Potato Famine, which killed a third of the Irish and displaced another third. But the music about Ireland that these refugees sang a generation later was syrupy-sweet. The story that my family retains about this ancestor is that he walked through Cork for awhile before he emigrated, and that he never slept without a roof -- that is, that his neighbors were hospitable to him, everywhere, every day. The family story suggests that young O’Keefe was easy to get along with, but it focuses on hospitality. And for sure: to get a picture of the devastated countryside, you have to go to some other source.

John O’Keefe was a stone mason in Knocknagree, County Cork; I am not sure what his work was here in America. He settled in Rockport, Massachusetts, and stayed there awhile. One evening, a neighbor came to see him. “O’Keefe,” he said, “I like you, so I’m telling you. We have decided that we don’t want Irish Catholics here, and we are going to burn your house down tomorrow. I like you, so I’m giving you warning, and you have time to pack up and leave.” He packed and left, and moved to Peterborough, NH, where some in-laws helped him settle on a farm.
In that time, businesses often had signs in the window that announced simply: NINA. That’s not Nina as in “the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria.” That’s NINA as in “No Irish Need Apply.” But we think of ourselves as irrepressible, and maybe we are. John’s son, John Aloysius (in retrospect, we identify him as John A the First; they were many more), received a good education in a one-room red schoolhouse on the side of a mountain a few miles outside the town of Peterborough. His teacher there was related to Thornton Wilder, perhaps his grandmother. It seems that she was a good teacher; it is sure that he was a good student. John A. went on to Harvard.

Just 15 years after the flight from Rockport, the family was back in the Boston area. John A. O’Keefe did well enough at Harvard (#2 in his class) to earn a slot as speaker at graduation in 1881, giving the “salutatorian address.“ He spoke about prejudice against Catholics, telling his classmates that they had been taught falsely that the Church was on the side of tyranny. When he finished, his WASP classmates were silent. A Jesuit from Boston College, Fr. Walsh I think, stood and applauded -- alone. That was 131 years ago, and we still chuckle about it.

It was his generation that established Irish power in Massachusetts. He was headmaster of Lynn Classical High School, and later another city school in Lynn was named for him. He supported the early labor movement, including the famous strike at the shoe factories in Lynn. In his generation, John (“Honey Fitz”) Fitzgerald was elected the first Irish mayor of Boston, displacing the previous patrician class.

The descendants of John O’Keefe are not as abundant as the stars, but they did proliferate. We are mathematicians, scientists, astrophysicists, chemists, geologists, (no biologists), doctors, lawyers, undertakers, politicians and activists, managers, glass-makers, teachers, soldiers, cops, tax resisters, engineers. At least 12 of his descendants went to Harvard. My great-grandfather was an educator who supported labor unions in their early days. My grandfather was a pediatrician who was very proud of his work with immigrants, including many Eastern Europeans, particularly Poles. My father was an astrophysicist who supported the civil rights movement -- hiring colorblind, marching, and collecting signatures for fair housing petitions.

Family lore does not record whether the house in Rockport was actually burned, after the offensive Irish with all their “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion” had left. What does remain in family lore is etched in stone, in New England granite: we remember that we too once were “strangers in a strange land.” But by God’s grace, we have seen much good and done much more.

Why do I care about immigration policy? Quick story ...

The writing assignment was something silly, something trivial. I think I had suggested that they recall a time when they were scared but had to do something anyway. The focus of the lesson was organizing a story chronologically, and I didn’t care what they wrote about. But there was Caridad, working away, brow furrowed, tongue poking out the side.

Cari (not her real name) is not in a remedial class because she has a learning disability; she has trouble with reading and writing because English is her second language. She’s from Central America. She tolerates me, but doesn’t like school. She is a petite beauty, and it is fun to watch her escape from class and start talking to her friends; her face lights up and her mouth motors up. But now, she is focused on her work, without any trace of boredom. I stop at her desk and read over her shoulder.

“The worse part of the trip is bus riding. We sit for three days, and I am very sore. My legs they are not a good shape. They are all stiffed and crammed. I am nerves and frayed all over my whole body. At end of bus, we run two days across the desert, and I am not running good. Dark is outside the bus and I am scare. Then light is outside the bus and I am still frayed. Soon I am running, but now my legs are bad crammed and I am scare stiff. I hate bus riding worse of all.”

Cari seems so empty-headed most of the time. She tends her nails and her hair. She giggles with her friends. She flirts a lot. I asked carelessly for a story with a clear time line, and I get this? I am supposed to correct the spelling, the grammar, the transitions, the chronology in that story?

I do not remember what I said: something useful, something forgettable. I do remember what I thought, because it has not changed: I am so privileged that this girl came to my country when she emigrated. I am so ashamed she had to travel in fear and pain to get here. I am so glad she is able to live a normal teenage life here now. I am so fortunate to get a glimpse past the curtain of silliness into the strength hidden inside. I admire her so much.

Protect Social Security!

Congress and the President have dared each other to get serious about reforming Social Security to ensure that it works in the future. I wish them well. But I do want to focus on one much-neglected piece of the puzzle. You can’t fix Social Security if you don’t fix immigration.

I don’t believe the charge that Social Security is a fraudulent Ponzi scheme, but I agree completely that it is depends on a growing population and economy. If a population shrinks, then the number of old folks grows as a proportion of the whole. In one generation, you could have ten healthy young people supporting each retiree; then in a later generation, you might have three. That’s not sustainable; it can’t work well for long. Social Security depends on population growth.

The birthrate in families of people born in the United States is already below replacement rate. That is, if you don’t count immigrants, we are already a shrinking country. When our population decline began, it was not obvious, because two things happened at about the same time. While families got smaller, medical care improved and people lived longer. Keeping older folks around longer kept our population up, which hid the drop in the birthrate. But still, for locally grown Americans, we are already below replacement: we have fewer children than parents. That could destroy Social Security.

Immigration keeps the nation growing, vibrant, young, and healthy. It’s better than Cheerios, better even than Guinness. Our population is NOT declining, despite our catastrophic birthrate, because people are flooding in by the millions.

I’m not saying that we should exploit our immigrants. I’m just pointing out that immigrants are paying for Social Security, like the rest of us, and that their contributions mean that the system can work (if Congress and the President, whoever they are whenever they get around to it, will get serious about reform).

On the other hand, if you want to guarantee that Social Security breaks and stays broken, just throw out 12 million immigrants, and tighten the border. That will break our hearts and bust the bank, both.

Jose Marti

Some years ago, a classmate from Oklahoma got me started reading Elmore Leonard. Or Leonard Elmore: I’ve read most of his books with great delight and still can’t remember which name is first. His Westerns and detective stories are shameless mind candy, just pure fun. But a thoughtful guy lurks behind the confections, and Mr. Leonard (I just checked) got me reading Jose Marti -- not for his poetry, but for his politics.

Jose Marti wrote “Guantanamera,” a simple beautiful piece of music that I have sung for decades in the shower and other uninhabited/uninhibited places. Marti sang (or wrote, others sang) that he preferred the mountains to the sea. Well, first, I agree; and second, it sounds so beautiful in mournful Spanish! Even mangled Anglo-Spanish. And he wrote that he “chose to share his fate with the poor of the earth.” That touches every romantic and spiritual chord in my body and soul. The song also has some “Old Macdonald” scraps that I like: “Guantanamera, ah-ee-oh …” I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean anything, but I only know Manglo-Spanish. Still, it’s fun.

Anyway, Leonard got me reading about Marti, and I found that he is embraced by Communists and anti-Communists alike. I admire that. Marti was a Cuban revolutionary leader in the second half of the 19th century, who helped start the revolution that ended Spanish rule in Cuba. I admire that too. But he had a deep ambivalence about the United States. He admired our ideals, and was inspired by our drive for freedom and equality. But at the same time, he was appalled by our treatment of our southern neighbors. So even as he fought the Spanish, he had his eye on threats on the horizon, and spoke against overweening American influence.

I grew up hearing Fidel Castro roaring away about how he was going to stop Yanqui imperialism, and I thought he was hallucinating. I mean, I wasn’t planning to build an empire in Ecuador or Paraguay; were you? And if we had decided to build an empire in Latin America, what was Fidel gonna do about it, huh? So I was shocked when I learned that Castro got all this stuff from Marti, not from Jamaican weed. Over a century ago, Marti said that Cuba had great role to play in history: to make sure that American imperialism did not spread south of Florida.

Marti admired us, but did not trust us. He did not believe that we would treat Latinos with respect. He thought we were capable of deep hypocrisy, preaching equality but acting with savage naked greed and totally blind self-absorbed ambition. Where did he get that idea? Aside from our treatment of blacks and Indians and Tories and Canucks and Mexicans and Jews and Papists and Chinks and Japs and Wops and Krauts and morons and rag-heads, we’re pretty good with folks. Right?

Even now, I would like to live and act in such a way that I would be worthy of Marti’s trust, practicing what we have always preached.

The American Dream: happine$$ ??

The American dream: is it about freedom and equality, or about money? To listen to presidential candidates today, you would think that the Revolutionary War was about the pursuit of happine$$. To be sure, that was and is a part of the picture. But it was third -- “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.“ And when Lincoln summarized it, he talked about a “a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” No one noticed then or since that he summarized the Declaration of Independence without mentioning the “pursuit of happiness.”

The Dream Act is about the identity of the nation. Are we the first nation in history that is defined by adherence to ideals, or are we just another place where Europeans accumulated wealth and kept it?