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.