Memorial Day Musings On "Just War"

Howard Zinn/photo by Robin Holland

We're in the middle of another Memorial Day Weekend in the US.

By happenstance, I've been reading the tail-end of NONVIOLENCE IN AMERICA edited by Staughton and Alice Lynd. (If you haven't heard of it, or the Lynds, it would be well worth a little time to become acquainted.)

The collection is made up of 56 documents that include Howard Zinn's "Just and Unjust Wars."

Zinn is more famous for his A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. But this essay is just as powerful. His basic premise is that there really is no such thing as a just war. Here's some of it:

"I have a friend in Japan who was a teenager when the war [WWII] ended. He lived in Osaka. He remembers very distinctly that on August 14, five days after the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, the Japanese agreed to surrender on August 15. After Nagasaki, it was very clear that they were about to surrender in a matter of days, but on August 14, when everybody through the war was over, the bombers came over his city of Osaka and dropped the bombs. He remembers going through the streets and the corpses and finding leaflets also dropped along with the bombs saying: the war is over.

"Just causes can lead you to think that everything you then do is just. I suppose I've come to the conclusion that war, by its nature, being the indiscriminate and mass killing of large numbers of people, cannot be justified for any political cause, and ideological cause, any territorial boundary, any tyranny, and aggression. Tyrannies, aggressions, injustices, of course they have to be dealt with. No appeasement. They give us this multiple choice: appeasement or war. Come on! You mean to say between appeasement and war there aren't a thousand other possibilities? Is human ingenuity so defunct, is our intelligence so lacking that we cannot devise ways of dealing with tyranny and injustice without killing huge numbers of people?...

"Somehow at the beginning of it is some notion of justice and rightness. But that process has to be examined, reconsidered. If people do think about it they have second thoughts about it.

Howard Zinn

"One of the elements of this process is simply to play on people's need for community, for national unity. What better way to get national unity than around a war? It's much easier, simpler, quicker. And of course it's better for the people who run the country to get national unity around a war than to get national unity around giving free medical care to everybody in the country. Surely we could build national unity. We could create a sense of national purpose. We could have people hanging out yellow ribbons for doing away with unemployment and homelessness. We could do what is done when any group of people decides and the word goes out and the airwaves are used to unite people to help one another instead of to kill one another. It can be done.

"People do want to be part of a larger community. Warmakers take advantage of that very moral and decent need for community and unity and being part of a whole and use it for the most terrible of purposes. But it can be used the other way too."

THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF WAR

Issues of morality aside, the cost of war is enormous.

Take the US' war against Afghanistan.

Begun in 2001, it is now in its nineteenth year, making it the US' longest-running war.

During that time more than 24,000 civilians, 62,000 Afghan soldiers and police officers and 2,400 US soldiers have been killed.

The economic cost has been staggering: more than $1.07 trillion as of FY 2017.

And we still have US soldiers there.

It doesn't take much imagination to wonder what most of Afghanistan looks like after nineteen years of bombing.

According to World Vision there are 2.6 million Afghans living outside of their country mostly due to war, poverty and other related issues. There are another 2.4 million Afghans who are displaced living within their own country.

Besides Afghanistan, the top refugee-producing countries are: Syria 5.6 million, South Sudan 2.3 million, Mynamar (Burma) 1.2 million and the Democratic Republic of Congo 833,400. The vast majority, by far, of these refugees fled their countries because of war.

Yes, it is correct to remember those who have given their lives in combat. But it is also just as correct to pause and somberly reflect on the price we, as the human race, are paying for war, and summon the courage to figure out an alternative way of settling differences.

An Interview With Staughton & Alice Lynd: Social Justice Champions

Staughton & Alice Lynd

Staughton Lynd is an historian and attorney who has been a long-time activist for civil rights, labor rights, and peace. A graduate of Harvard University with a Ph.D. from Columbia, he taught at Spelman College in the 1960s, and in 1964 was invited by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) to coordinate the Freedom Schools in Mississippi. He earned a JD at the University of Chicago Law School in 1976.  His many books include Accompanying: Pathways to Social Change, and Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism.  Alice Lynd has a JD degree from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.  During the Vietnam War she published We Won’t Go: Personal Accounts of War Objectors. Together the Lynds have edited oral histories, including the classic Rank and File: Personal Histories by Working-Class Organizers, and a memoir Stepping Stones. Prior to the third edition of Nonviolence in America: A Documentary History, their most recent book is Moral Injury and Nonviolent Resistance: Breaking the Cycle of Violence in the Military and Behind Bars. They live in Ohio.

You have been at the forefront of social justice in the US for over six decades. What continues to motivate you?

            Alice:  Human rights.

            Staughton:  I continue to abhor the institutionalized violence, the disregard for those at the bottom of the heap, the intense individualism and resultant isolation, of our capitalist society.  Having lived in a small intentional community in the hills of Georgia when my wife Alice and I were in our twenties, I know there is a better way.  As I accompanied the cows to the milking barn in the early morning dark, everything I could see as the sun came up over the rim of surrounding hills was part of the new way of life we were creating.

To what extent did your childhood influence your adult life?

            Alice:  My parents were very much concerned about world peace after World War I.

            Staughton:  My parents were among those pejoratively known as “fellow travelers,” that is, radicals but not Communist or Socialist Party members.  My mother, as student body president at Wellesley, had protested a raucous celebration at the end of World War I and insisted on a solemn chapel service built around Kipling’s “Recessional” (“the captains and the kings depart,” etc.).  My father, during a student internship between the first and second years at Union Theological Seminary, worked alongside his parishioners at a Rockefeller oil well in Elk Basin, Wyoming, preaching in the school house Sunday evening.

What is your most vivid recollection of serving as the director of the Freedom Schools during the summer of 1964?

            Staughton:  Probably the so-called Freedom School Convention held in the outskirts of Meridian, Mississippi in early August 1964.  Each of the almost forty schools sent a couple of delegates.  They debated and adopted resolutions about a long list of political issues.  Most important, they wisely determined to return to their impoverished segregated schools, and improve them, rather than take a chance that our “freedom schools” could survive and provide appropriate credentials upon graduation.  (See Jon Hale, The Freedom Schools, map on page 6.)

At one point the both of you combined forces for an oral history project that focused on the working class. What was the biggest take-away from that experience?

            Staughton:  There is a mystique that infects the work of historians of the CIO and the contribution thereto of John L. Lewis.  Lewis created unions in steel, rubber, meat packing, and so on, that replicated the topdown structure of the United Mine Workers.  CIO collective bargaining agreements typically contained (1) a management prerogatives clause that gave management the right to make unilateral decisions about opening and closing plants and thereby doomed our struggles in Youngstown and Pittsburgh; (2) a clause forbidding strikes, slowdowns, and other forms of direct action during the life of the contract.  Takeaway:  Never give up the right to strike.  It is better to have no contract, and undertake shopfloor struggles one by one, than to give away labor’s only effective tool.

             Alice:  Coming to know some of the individuals and gain insight into their experiences:  Kate Hyndman, Vicky Starr, Sylvia Woods, George Sullivan, John Sargent, Ed Mann.

You both seem to have a heart for education. Staughton, you were a professor until your return from Hanoi in January, 1966. Alice, you graduated with a degree in childhood education, did draft counseling and trained draft counselors. What was the most rewarding part of those experiences?

            Staughton: I was an administrator of the Freedom Schools.  As a teacher, I have most enjoyed seminars in our basement at home.  We are presenting one right now on non-violence.

            Alice:  Coming in touch with people at the deepest level; the concept that the counselee and the counselor were two equal experts, hand in hand.

Alice, when you were growing up your family moved quite a number of times (over 40). What was it like growing up during the Great Depression? Staughton what was your childhood like?

            Alice:  I was aware of my parents’ struggle to make enough money.  At one point, I offered to give them what I had saved from my allowance, 37 cents, but they refused.  We lived at my grandfather’s house when my parents had no work.  Moving so many times, it was not until I was fifteen that I had any significant friendships.

            Staughton:  Both my parents were full-time teachers.  Our family was secure.

You both became lawyers later in life. Staughton why did you choose law? Alice, you were in your mid-fifties when you went to law school. What was that like?

            Staughton:  We sought a profession that would permit us to work together.  For me to take a job in a steel mill would not have permitted this.  So we chose law as an occupation that would make use of my flair for the big picture and Alice’s mastery of detail. 

            Alice:  We chose to go into law with the idea that Staughton was good at working with big ideas, and I was good at working with administrative regulations in order to make a case based on essential facts and concepts.  Going to law school, beginning at age 52, was at the extreme limit of what I could do.  During the first semester, I was in a special course for older and/or disadvantaged students.  We were taught how to write answers to essay questions on law school exams.  One professor told us that we would not be there if the law school did not believe we could succeed.  That was encouraging.

During an extensive interview with the ACLU you both mentioned the importance of seeing the individual behind the legal action. Alice you stated that “the richness of detail” from your days as a draft counselor carried over to your legal work in labor law which made your work “come alive.” Staughton, you spoke about the connection between liberation theology and your work, especially in regards to how to treat clients. Could you both elaborate?

            Alice:  I loved the process of figuring out with clients what the relevant facts and contract provisions were, or what needed to be shown to comply with legal requirements.  Sometimes it would be a meeting with a group of retirees and we would piece together not just what was said on paper in a contract, but how things actually worked in the shop.

            Staughton:  Liberation theology as developed by Latin American exponents including Oscar Romero advocated “accompaniment” rather than organizing.  The organizer approaches other human beings with the intent to cause them to adopt predetermined ideas and engage in predetermined actions.  In accompanying, you and I walk side by side, each learning from the other.

Alice, during the same ACLU interview you mentioned concern for mutual respect when presenting cases within the legal system. You made the point that “you don’t disrespect your adversary.” You also said that problem solving should include mutual respect and the ability to recognize there’s another side to any case. Would you care to elaborate?

            Alice:   Yes.  This is very important to me.  There isn’t any case unless there are differences that have to be overcome.  The point is to resolve the differences, not call each other names.  Once the adversary recognizes that we want to solve the problem and assume they do too, then we can look for a way to reconcile what they want and what we need. 

In the ACLU interview, you both mentioned a carry-over of this type of respect as a crucial ingredient to a successful marriage. Alice, you said, “we’ve learned to value our differences.” Staughton, you said “if we regard these differences as alternative strengths we can be hell on wheels.” Any further thoughts on how to achieve this sort of harmony in marriage? In life?

            Alice:  Listen!  What can I learn from the other person?  From my starting point, and from his starting point, what is the third point where we can come together and be enriched by the other one’s perceptions?

            Staughton:  We believe in the institution of marriage.  Among major activists of the 1960s about whose personal lives we have knowledge, ours is one of the few marriages to have survived that decade.  A key, as we see it, is to reject the marriage in which the husband roams the world making speeches and Doing Good while the wife stays home, takes care of the children, and keeps the household from falling apart.  We reject the concept of living parallel lives.

What about your faith? To what extent has your faith influenced your life?

            Staughton:  As a youngster I attended the Ethical Culture Schools in New York City from pre-kindergarten through 12^th grade.  At the 64^th Street meeting house there was and is an auditorium.  I graduated sixth grade and was inducted as student body president on that platform.  The words above the platform were “The place where men [later modified] meet to seek the highest is holy ground.”  As adults Alice and I became Quakers.  There the essential concept is the belief that all human beings have an inner light, a voice of conscience.  We oppose calling soldiers “baby killers” or police officers “pigs.”  While firmly opposing action we believe to be wrong, we must at the same time – as it were, with the other hand – reach out and say, Join us.”     

            Alice:  Being a Quaker has been very important to me in doing prison work.  One time, a prison administrator asked me, why do you do this?  I told her, because Quakers believe there is an inner light in every person; we try to reach that in these men.  We oppose the death penalty.  We reject the concept of life without parole as an alternative to the death penalty, because we believe people can change.  Once a lieutenant said to us, “You have always respected me.  Why?”  We ended up with him showing us pictures of his grandchildren.

Is there anything else you’d like to mention?

            Alice:  It was not until after we retired that I began to feel that I had found and was able to do needed work that no one else would do.  It has been very demanding, and very rewarding.  I could not have done any of this without Staughton’s vision of the person I could become.

----------

Click here for a review of NONVIOLENCE IN AMERICA

Studies Prove Immigrants Don't Increase the Crime Rate

TheNation

Another in a series of reports debunking the myth of a connection between immigrants, undocumented immigrants and increased crime rates has just been completed.

According to a New York Times Upshot/ Marshall Project report last year, there was no causal relationship between immigrants and crime. 

And now the Pew Research Center shows the same lack of correlation, this time among undocumented immigrants.

To put it simply, the NY Times reported that: "An analysis derived from the new data is now available to help address this question, suggesting that the growth in illegal immigration does not lead to higher local crime rates." 

Americanprogress.org

The Pew Research Center report found that, between 2007 and 2o16, whether the number of undocumented immigrants increased or fell, violent crime remained flat. Says the New York Times, "A large majority of the areas recorded decreases in both violent and property crime between 2007 and 2016, consistent with a quarter-century decline in crime across the United States. The analysis found that crime went down at similar rates regardless of whether the undocumented population rose or fell. Areas with more unauthorized migration appeared  to have larger drops in crime, although the difference was small and uncertain."

The Pew Research Center report matches what the Cato Institute found which noted that undocumented immigrants in Texas as less likely to be incarcerated than the general population. 

The NYTimes also reported "at the more local level, an analysis by Governing magazine found that metropolitan areas with more undocumented residents had similar rates of violent crime, and lower rates of property crime, than areas with smaller numbers of such residents in 2014." 

Telesurenglish.net

The bottom line of it is that there appears to be no relationship between undocumented immigrants, immigrants and the crime rate.

The NYTimes concludes that: "Preliminary findings indicate that other socioeconomic factors like unemployment rates, housing instability and measures of economic hardship all predict higher rates of different types of crime, while undocumented immigrant populations do not....The data suggests that when it comes to crime, the difference between someone who is called a legal immigrant and an illegal one doesn't seem to matter."

Contrary to what the current administration in the White House is telling us, both documented and undocumented immigrants come to the US to find jobs, not commit crimes. 

It's important to recognize false statements, particularly when they are being made with such frequency by the current administration in the White House. It's just as important to be able to know the truth and demand that our elected representatives respond positively to it.

There is ample evidence to prove that we don't need a stronger, bigger "beautiful" wall at the border we share with Mexico. What we do need is more compassion and a growing recognition that immigrants and refugees are a positive economic force for good. We all stand to benefit by providing adequate funding and other resources to support immigrants and refugees. 

A Review: NONVIOLENCE IN AMERICA edited by Staughton & Alice Lynd

First, I need to mention that this is a review of the Third Edition of NONVIOLENCE IN AMERICA, edited by Staughton and Alice Lynd. It also bears acknowledging that Staughton and Alice Lynd have been pillars within the social justice/nonviolence communities for over fifty years.

There is probably no other couple like the Lynds who are so deeply and personally qualified to edit such a collection.

There have been comparisons of the Lynd's book with Howard Zinn's A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. It's fair, but not entirely accurate. The chief similarity is that both books bite off huge chunks of history (Zinn's begins circa the 1400s, while the Lynd's begins about two hundred years later).

The chief difference is that Zinn's book is written, for the most part, by Zinn. With the exception of the introduction, everything else in NONVIOLENCE IN AMERICA was written by other folks.

All told, NONVIOLENCE IN AMERICA contains 56 different documents and it's an excellent testimony to the Lynd's faithful pursuit of the topic.

One of the difficulties, of course, in reviewing this sort of collection, is that you could ask ten different readers their opinion and you're guaranteed to get ten entirely different responses.

Personally, I found Ammon Hennacy's "Atlanta Prison 1917, "David Dillinger's "From Yale to Jail," Wilmer Young's "Visible Witness," Robert Moses' "Message From Jail," Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," Shelley Douglas', "A World Where Abortion is Unthinkable" and Helen Prejean's "Dead Man Walking" to be the most moving.

But no matter what your own favorite(s) in this collection, NONVIOLENCE IN AMERICA presents an essential piece of US history. The Lynds are to be commended for being so diligent in their research. They are even more to be commended and honored for their personal commitment to social justice. 

For more information on NONVIOLENCE IN AMERICA click here.

Meet Karen Gonzalez, Author of The God Who Sees: Immigants, the Bible, and the Journey to Belong

Karen Gonzalez

Karen Gonzalez is a native of Guatemala and immigrated to the U.S. as a child. She is a speaker, writer and immigrant advocate, who lives in Baltimore, MD. Karen is the human resources director at World Relief and attended Fuller Theological Seminary, where she studied theology and missiology. Her first book for Herald Press will be released on May 21, 2019: The God Who Sees: Immigrants, the Bible, and the Journey to Belong. You can connect with her on Twitter and Instagram: @_karenjgonzalez where you’ll find her musing about theology, baseball, and her passion for tacos.


Fairly early in your book THE GOD WHO SEES, you offer a series of examples of how God “sees” (looks after) the foreigner. You mention Naomi, Ruth and Boaz; Hagar and Abraham; Joseph (Jacob’s son), the Syrophoenician Woman and Mary, Joseph and Jesus. In particular with the example of Boaz, you write that he practiced true hospitality, Philoxenia – love of strangers and foreigners. What should all these examples teach us about how God views those who are considered strangers and foreigners?

Many people in the US and other countries feel strongly that there should be priority for citizens and not foreigners, but God over and over again told the people that they must love immigrants as themselves and to remember that they had been immigrants in Egypt. Even the Sabbath was not just for the Israelites but also for immigrants who could not secure rights for themselves. God wants immigrants to be treated with the same dignity and granted all the same rights as those who are native citizens. 



Writing about the difference between what Ruth experienced due to Boaz’s philoxenia, you state" “The immigration system in the United States stands in sharp contrast to what we see in the little book of Ruth. There we see a picture of the immigrant and the citizen working together side by side, for the flourishing of their communities. The concern isn’t just for their own security or economic interest. Nobody looks out for their own country or ethnic group. Nobody considers themselves superior and subjugates the powerless.” What do you think Jesus would say about the current state of the United States’ immigration policy?

I believe Jesus is heartbroken at the way immigrants and other vulnerable people are treated in our country and in other western nations. Jesus said in Matthew 25 that how we treat the stranger or immigrant is how we would receive him. Just as Jesus rebuked those who oppressed the poor and marginalized, I believe he would do the same to those who enact policies that especially harm immigrants and other marginalized groups.



Here’s an interesting thought from THE GOD WHO SEES: “As much as I believe in laws, I also wonder if we often value our human-made laws more than the human beings that they were designed to guide or protect.” You also make the point that “good laws are organic, not static.” How would a deeper understanding of this help inform our immigration debate and practices in the US?

In the New Testament, Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for humankind not humankind for the Sabbath. Similarly, laws are made to guide and protect humans; laws are made for humans but humans aren’t made for laws! Laws are not inerrant and often need amending. Yet when it comes to immigration, many of us treat immigration laws as if the only response is Romans 13: people who violate immigration laws have broken the law and there’s nothing that can be done except to follow the law and deport them. But there is! Unjust laws that harm the poor and vulnerable can and should be changed. The laws are not more important than human beings.



You recall your early experience as a Catholic, particularly Holy Communion, as a time when you had little understanding of your faith. You make an interesting point that: “I did not understand a single thing about the Eucharist, but I was too intimidated to ask questions. Those emotions – confusion, intimidation, bewilderment – became emblematic of my entire life of faith until I became an adult.” I’m wondering what helped you overcome this situation?

What most helped me overcome my confusion and intimidation of faith is reading and studying the Bible in community. We were never meant to figure out how to follow God on our own—it has always been a communal call. When I was a college student, I began to read the Bible in community and felt the freedom to ask questions and sit with doubts. Of course, I have not figured out everything, but I began the journey with those friends.



Writing of your own family’s immigrant experience (leaving Guatemala) you write: “…most immigrants never dream of leaving their countries. In fact, when we leave, we leave pieces of ourselves behind. We leave our homes, our comforts, our heart languages, our extended families, and our sense of self. We have to start all over again, almost like children, in a new country.” Can you offer any wisdom in terms of how we can be more helpful, more sensitive to this part of the immigrant experience?

I love this question! And I think the most helpful thing that people can do is just remember that sometimes immigrant stories are ones of adventure, contribution, and adaptation but sometimes they are also stories of loss and sorrow. It’s important to know immigrants and their stories to respond with sensitivity and kindness.

You note that America’s history is one that is hugely influenced and populated by immigrants. Yet, now there seems to be “convenient amnesia” that most of us are descendants from immigrants. You state: “The implication seems to be that immigrants have changed. The truth is that immigrants are the same – they have the same need and the same humanity. It’s the laws that have changed.” Why is it so difficult to see “that immigrants are God’s image-bearers – human beings whose dignity and worth should be respected.”?

It seems to be a natural and unfortunate human response to look for someone to blame when globalization and other forces have dramatically changed the way our country functions and looks. In addition, those who are in an economically imperiled situation are also looking for a reason, a rationale for why this is so. It’s sad that often politicians and others use immigrants as a scapegoat. Historically, it has always been so—Irish, Italian, Eastern European, Chinese, and Jewish immigrants have all experienced the same throughout America’s history. And seeing immigrants as less than human allows people to harm and speak about them in terrible and unimaginable ways.



You quote Professor Richard Beck regarding showing hospitality in order to welcome Jesus. And you make a really interesting statement afterwards. “Many of us are familiar with spiritual disciplines that bring us close to God – disciplines like prayer, study, and meditation are critical to our growth. But while these move us closer to God, they often fail to move us closer to one another.” Would you elaborate on this?

Many spiritual disciples are vertical—we want to grow closer to Jesus and be more like him. That’s good and critical if we are his followers. But Jesus also talked a lot about loving our neighbors, especially our poor neighbors in need (widows, orphans, those with disabilities—in his time). I agree with Professor Beck that we have to practice spiritual disciplines that help us to see the image of God in our neighbors—these are more horizontal spiritual disciplines. Initiating a relationship with an immigrant out of love for God and a desire to obey God could be such a discipline. Just as we often don’t want to pray but do it anyway, as a discipline, we can draw near to our neighbors in mutuality and sincerity of heart to know them and love them as God calls us to do.



You write about how the Egyptians treated the Israelites and that when they initially welcomed them, they welcomed God. But when the Egyptians eventually rejected the Israelites, they rejected God, without realizing it. “Welcoming and embracing our immigrant neighbors is how we will transition back to philoxenia.” Can you expand on this idea?

While it seems counterintuitive, the only way to truly see and love our immigrant neighbors is to welcome them and embrace them. In an age of fear and the building of walls, this is a tremendous act of faith, but only in welcoming them will we see that they don’t just bring needs; they also bring gifts: hard work, faith, families who integrate into our country, talents, and love.

You work for World Relief. Can you describe your work, in light of what you mention in THE GOD WHO SEES: “Those in the United States who advocate for immigrants understand that we face insurmountable odds. As I write, we face a presidential administration that is decimating the refugee resettlement program. We face border agents who refuse people… their right to apply for asylum; a zero-tolerance policy at the border that separates immigrant children from their parents; the cancellation of Temporary Protected Status for those who have fled disasters or political instability in the countries; the criminalization of immigration…” What keeps you advocating for immigrants’ rights?

What encourages me is that we serve a God who sees—he saw Hagar and Ruth and Joseph in Egypt—people who were considered unimportant, disposable even. God’s Spirit rests with those who are outcasts, strangers, and immigrants. I’m supremely encouraged by knowing that our God does not abandon immigrants in their need. God sees them in their need just as God sees us in our rejection and mistreatment of immigrants.



In your own faith journey, you describe ultimately feeling like you belonged to a Christian community. And how that community became important to you. A few chapters after this, you mention that “in many Western countries today, fears of scarcity around jobs, services, and resources seem to be the default response to immigration.” To what extent does this prevalent scarcity mentality point to a lack of faith?

Just as it takes faith to give to the Church and back to God from our resources, it takes faith to welcome immigrants trusting in a God of abundance in whose economy there’s always enough. I believe it’s a lack of faith that rejects and fears that immigrants will take what’s rightfully ours. God doesn’t call us to trust in our countries or their economies but to trust in Jesus and his provision.



Towards the conclusion of THE GOD WHO SEES, you reach for a positive note, making the point that “It seems appropriate that a church born out of a God born to a humble Middle Eastern family in a conquered and subjugated land would find hope from mostly poor immigrants.” You say that the future of the church in North America is tied to the future of immigrants. Would you expand on this idea?

Research has shown that immigrants are more likely to be or become Christians. As such they present the greatest hope for renewal for an American church in decline. As I visit immigrant churches in Baltimore, I see that they are thriving—this is not the case with non-immigrant churches.



Of borders, in general, you make an interesting point that: “Borders actually increase criminal activity and place people in situations that make them vulnerable to exploitation and death.” How would like to see the current border dilemma solved?

I would love to see us return to a time when our borders were porous and not militarized—we had a secure border but one that took into account our labor needs as well as the well-being of our neighbors. This was the case for much of the 20^th century and only changed when particular politicians became uncomfortable with that reality.



Perhaps your description of La Posada sin Fronteras points to a solution? Can you describe what this Latin American tradition is?

 The Posada is a sung re-enactment of the story of Joseph and Mary looking for shelter on Christmas night. Posadas are an important Christmas tradition in many Latin American communities and feature prominently in holiday festivities. These community celebrations take place on each of the nine nights leading up to Christmas, from December 16 to 24th. The word posada means "inn" or "shelter" in Spanish, and in this tradition, the Bible story of Mary and Joseph's journey to Bethlehem and their search for a place to stay is re-enacted. For me the way the Posada Sin Fronteras provides a solution is that it points toward hope—even though Mary and Joseph are refused entry at every door they knock on. They are admitted to the very last one, the one that recognizes that it’s God himself to whom they are giving shelter. Those of us who are immigrants and advocate for immigrants pray for such recognition on the part of Americans—one that would lead toward welcome and embrace. 

For more information on THE GOD WHO SEES.

For more informtion on World Relief.