Hardship

The mayor of Warren, Michigan recently complained about the possible influx of Iraqi refugees into his city. He said it would be "a hardship".

In an effort to calm public fears, Michigan Senator Carl Levin said the numbers of refugees sited by the mayor (15,000) were “misleading”. This year, the U.S. can expect to settle only about 2,000 Iraqi refugees, and in total, the State Department has agreed to absorb only 25,000 of the (so far) 2.2 million Iraqi refugees, to be spread around the country.

In case you don't have a calculator handy, 25,000 out of 2.2 million comes to 1%. Is it just me, or does that seem like a shamefully small percentage? After all, this was *our* war. Our president and his pals came up with the idea. Our congress persons voted to authorize it. Indeed most Americans were gung-ho about it in the beginning. Those who urged caution were disparaged as unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers. Five years on, it doesn’t look like we can fix what we broke in Iraq. Most Americans have come to the conclusion that we should cut our losses and hope for the least worst of all the terrible possibilities. That’s a rational decision, but it doesn’t follow that we can then wash our hands of the whole thing and go on with our lives as if nothing happened. We certainly can't wash our hands of the financial cost: we and our children will be paying the $444, 937,600,000 and counting for this war. And we should not wash our hands of the moral costs either.

Actions have consequences. Accepting refugees from the horror that we largely created may be more or less avoidable, but what our moral responsibility? Those of us not in the military have sacrificed next to nothing. We’ve only been asked to be patient and keep shopping! I don’t care to suffer hardship any more than Mr. Mayor and the good folks of Warren, but I’m seriously questioning what right I, or any American, has to be exempt from it in this case. If I really knew what it was like to suffer even a fraction of the hardship that a woman my age in Baghdad is suffering, I’d probably be offering to put her and her family up in my own house! Maybe some hardship for Americans is exactly what justice demands. It’s a bitter thought, but passing off the burden of refugees almost solely onto Iraq’s neighbors while we agree to accept only 1% seems shameful and cowardly.

Diversity, Trust, and Religion

I recently became aware of research by Robert Putnam that paints a mixed view of ethnic diversity. Here is an excerpt from the abstract of the study:

In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities.

Unsurprisingly, this study has been cited by numerous anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism folks -- usually minus the reference to the possible long term benefits. The come-back from progressives is usually to focus nearly entirely on the long term findings. I think this is equally problematic. Both the short and long term effects must be taken seriously if we care about the quality of our own lives and the lives of our neighbors – wherever they come from.

People who work with diverse populations at schools or in community settings will tend to file this study under the heading “not news”. The darker side of human nature makes diversity difficult. But diversity (and, I dare say, immigration) is here to stay, so what do we do? How do we make the short term problems as “short term” as possible? How do we get over the mistrust and “hunkering down” tendency?

I’m especially interested in thinking about what role religion (or spirituality, if you prefer) can play in the drama. It strikes me that when religion is at it’s worst, it exacerbates the problem – creating enclaves of suspicion and encouraging us to pass judgment on our neighbors. I’m sorry to say that I think this happens more often than not, but that doesn’t mean that secularism is necessarily the better answer. Secularism can just as easily lead to “me first” thinking, and suspicion of differences in manner or culture. No-holds-barred capitalism is thoroughly secular (in spite of the many Religious Right types who embrace it, seemingly contrary to biblical principles), yet it is the major cause of migration between countries, both legally and illegally. Not only are people drawn to western countries to seek opportunity, they are also “pushed” from the other direction by impossible economic situations brought on by a secular “theology” of globalism that elevates profit above any other social, political, or human good.

But what about religion as 17^th century Quaker Robert Barclay experienced it?

“For when I came into the silent assemblies of God's people, I felt a secret power among them which touched my heart; and as I gave way unto it, I found the evil weakening in me and the good raised up.”

Religion at it’s best raises up the good in us and weakens the evil. It reminds us that we are all loved by God, all part of the same sacred creation. Even when we can’t manage to feel that way about our fellow human beings, good religion disciplines us to behave as if it were true anyway. (“Love thy enemy” and all that...)

I’m interested in what others think about these topics. Please share!