One of the criticisms of those in Hellenismos is that we like to pick at the details while ignoring the larger themes. That we go round and round, segmenting every issue until the pieces are so small and obscure that they would slip through a mesh sieve.

It’s a fair, if over used, critique. Like all things, though, it is a useful way of looking at the world if used in moderation. It is a skill that I wish the greater public would use when looking at complex and nuanced political issues.

As an example – let’s look at the immigration/border controversy. It’s almost impossible to discuss this topic because our citizens, politicians, special interest groups, and media insist on treating it as a single topic instead of the three (or more) separate, yet related, issues it is.  Below immigration is broken up into three components with a brief description and a few possible questions that we should be debating in our public squares.

Immigration laws and regulations:

Nutshell:  Who gets in, when, in what numbers, and the process they need to follow. Levels of visitor and citizenship visas that can be applied for.

Questions:  Do our immigration policies treat prospective immigrants from various countries fairly? Should persons from some nations be given favorable treatment?  What changes would you make?  Do you know what the policies are?  How do our policies and regulations match up against European (or pick  a region) countries?  Should we even have immigration laws?

Illegal immigrants or Illegal aliens:

Nutshell:  People who are in this country unlawfully. Either because they crossed a border in stealth or because they entered the country legally but have stayed longer than their visa granted.

Questions:  What should we do with people who are in this country illegally?  Is it ethical that we (consumers in the USA) enjoy inexpensive products and services because we allow companies to economically exploit illegal aliens for cheap labor?  What are the pros and cons (economically, culturally, etc) of either deporting or not deporting illegal aliens?  Should we treat expired visas the same as we treat those who gain entry by stealth?  What do we expect of new immigrants to the USA?  What should we offer them to increase their chances of successful adaptation to living in the USA?

Border security:

Nutshell:  Keeping track of who enters and leaves the country. Protecting the US from prohibited goods being smuggled in or out of the country. Not allowing criminals to escape justice by fleeing to another country. Cross border crime and violence.

Questions:  Should we have formal borders?  Should we allow anything or anyone to cross the border as long as it is notated?  What should we do about cross-border crimes like the sex trade, drugs, and weapons smuggling?  Is it possible to maintain our border?  If it isn’t, should we give up or do the best we can?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Perhaps breaking such touchy subjects into its components could help us to focus our time and effort discussing the various issues at hand and come to some sort of resolution or compromise on at least some of it.  Would allow us to see that these aren’t simple black or white issue and people can have very graduated ideas and views.  It could allow us to get past the “you think X1(a), therefore you hate all Y and Z which makes you evil so I can now dismiss you as a fellow human being and I don’t have to listen to you.”

If you would like, pick one of the three sections of the larger immigration picture and discuss only that one area.  Those that comment below you, stick to only the one area, as well.  You can start multiple threads, but keep each thread on topic.  If you don’t wish to do this, at least keep this concept in mind – breaking down related but separate issues and examining them individually before you look at how they are connected in a larger context.  Never know what might happen if more people were willing to do this.

 

A pluralistic and diverse society is not easy to manage. One would think with several centuries of ethnic mixing, particularly in a country as diverse as the United States, that people would be used to getting along, or at least tolerating the differences between one another. But that does not seem to be the case. Our society seems to be fragmenting rather than blending.

There are many factors which give rise to antagonism: religion, nationalism, ethnicity, political ideology, and the old Marxist bogeyman, economics. And while we think of ourselves as a melting pot, the degree of mixing which has taken place has recently been called into question. We may co-exist to a degree but inter-marrying is less common.

Daniel T. Lichter recently reported on CNN that “According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center, one of every seven new marriages in 2008 was interracial or interethnic — the highest percentage in U.S. history.”

One in seven.

That isn’t a lot. About 14%. And “seemingly overlooked in the Pew Report is the finding that less than 5 percent of all married whites have a spouse of a different race or ethnicity. The vast majority of whites today — as in the past — marry other whites” (The Supreme Court ruling that outlawed state prohibitions against interracial marriage did not come about until 1967).

Keep in mind too that some people marry only within the “tribe.” It was widely believed that Swedes and Norwegians couldn’t live together and many European ethnic groups arriving in the United States clustered together, out of need or desire. So even among “whites” there were limitations on the mixing taking place.

Of course, some whites feel differently, seeing even that miniscule amount (because it is rising) as a threat to white America. “Their concerns,” Lichter goes on to say, “are heightened by recent Census Bureau projections that the U.S. will become a majority-minority society by the middle of the century.”

Will the rising tide of immigration and immigrant birth finally complete the process of mixing?

In what can hardly be called a surprise, CNN recently reported that a new poll “indicates Americans have complicated views towards immigrants.”

The poll, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national survey, shows that “the vast majority believe that most immigrants are basically good, honest people who are hard-working. However, nearly seven in ten say that immigrants are a burden on the taxpayer, 62 percent think they add to the crime problem, and 59 percent believe they take jobs away from Americans.”

Ouch. From the descendants of immigrants. Sounds like today’s immigrants are getting the same treatment once meted out to the Irish.

This poll is not referring simply to immigrants from south of the border, though I would be surprised if such thoughts did not influence the respondents. Instead, the poll, released Wednesday, “asks about all people who have immigrated from other countries in the past ten years, and not just about illegal immigrants in the U.S.” Doubtless far fewer immigrants today are “white” Anglo-Saxon compared to when our ancestors arrived from the Old World. Probably, far fewer of them are Protestants.

“The results may explain why most Americans think that the policies that made the U.S. a ‘melting pot’ strengthened the country a century ago but do not make the country stronger today,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

CNN asks whether, taking the “melting pot” metaphor a bit further, do Americans think that immigrants should maintain their own culture, or blend into the existing culture in this country?

The answer: “Two-thirds of whites say that immigrants should give up some important aspects of their culture to blend in; only about four in ten Hispanics, and an equal number of blacks, agree with that view,” adds Holland.

When my great-grandfather Tollef arrived in the Unied States, he did not speak any English. He wrote his letters home in Swedish. Wrote from the ranks of the Union Army during the Civil War. Was he less of an American because he kept elements of his native culture?

And how about Pagans? Paganism is and always has been a diverse phenomenon; all sorts of cultures, all sorts of ethnicities. This is as true today as it was in the ancient world. The common denominator was polytheism. This is not always the case today, but despite a broader interpretation of religion and spirituality, there is still a rejection of the Judeo-Christian idea of monotheism. There is the inclusion of nature, the inclusion of the feminine. There is a lot of inclusion and a lot less exclusion.

But even this rejection of one world view and the adoption of another does not have as a goal the destruction or negation of what is rejected. It adds a voice to the harmony; it does not remove one. It is more a matter advocating an acceptance of alternative forms of religion. The view of Judeo-Christian monotheism is, on the other hand, that all alternative forms of religion are inferior, wrong, and must (and will eventually) give way to the “True” religion.

Of course, we have three competing Abrahamic faiths all insisting they have possession of that exclusive Truth so the religious issue is problematic, especially when the sacred teachings of none of them espouse tolerance. After all, where the capital-T truth is concerned, there is no room for tolerance of what is not true. Even if alternative religionists wanted to join the True religion they couldn’t; there is no way to tell who has it, if anybody does.

The evils of nationalism have been well noted. The First World War is about as powerful a comment as one can make on the subject. The 60s anti-war protests about as powerful a rejection. Now, with the rise of American Exceptionalism, the pendulum has swung back the other way and the “constructed other” is again rejected, not welcomed. Hate and mixing are mutually compatible. American Exceptionalism is as ugly today as Prussian Nationalism was a century ago.

And unrestrained, it may lead us to the same place.

Ethnic squabbles are nothing new. They’re old beyond the extent of the historical record. We can look at the Old World over the past few centuries. We can look at the Balkans today or at Africa. America has had its own share.

But despite all these differences, people can get along. It has been proven. By Pagans. And I would argue that if Pagans cannot manage it today, nobody can. We have our own history to support us. We do not all have to believe the same things, or anything at all, to get along. Because there is no pressing need for others to believe the way you do, the religious equation ought to simply go away.

But how do Pagans cope with increasing polarization in the religious and political landscapes? Ancient pagans might have been drawn together by what they shared – polytheism’s non-exclusivity – but today’s version of religion – largely monotheistic and exclusivist, pushes people apart. Nothing can be shared when each group adopts an exceptionalist stance, be it due to religion or an excess of nationalism, ideology or some other cause.

Fast growing religion or not, Pagans are a drop in the bucket of American diversity. Can what we have in common, in the words of Jan Assmann (Moses the Egyptian 1997:3), “function as a means of intercultural translatability”? Fostering our common humanity, looking for connections, seems far more helpful a course than creating more gaping cracks between us, doesn’t it?

Disagree we might, but if we Pagans cannot tolerate each other, if we can’t translate inter-culturally, how can there be hope for anyone else?

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted July 16-21, with 1,018 adult Americans questioned by telephone, including a special sample of 308 black and 303 Hispanic respondents. The survey’s overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

 

I don’t know how much word is getting passed about Arizona’s new immigration laws in the rest of the country or how big a deal other news networks are making it in the rest of America. But in good ole’ Colorado, it’s major. We have a large number of immigrant workers here, and the bulk of them do tend to be of Hispanic origin. I’ve worked with a lot of immigrant workers from all over the world and there are a ton of problems that come with being a migrant worker, especially a non-white migrant worker. There’s a lot of racial profiling that occurs, a lot of snide jokes, and mixed government response.

Let me preface this by saying that I really wish all immigrants would come in legally, mostly for tax and economic reasons. But that’s not a reality right now. The reality is that a lot of people can’t afford to come in to the states legally. This creates a lot of problems for their children, by the way, who wind up losing out on education because of their own illegal status.

In spite of my desire to see immigration made a little easier on folks, the Arizona bill has me mad. I’m okay with the theory behind it, too. The idea is that Arizona police must check immigration papers if they have probable cause to suspect someone of being an illegal immigrant.

What gets me mad is that there is absolutely zero good way to get probable cause. I’ve known legal immigrants and I’ve known illegal immigrants. And the only way we ever knew if they were illegal was if they said so or they were found out and deported. Illegalization happens for a lot of reasons, too. Overstaying a visa, inability to pay to renew a visa but inability to pay to leave…. I get it. I don’t like it, but I get it.

I have to admit that I share concerns that this bill is going to turn into more cases of racial profiling than anything else. I don’t know what else qualifies as probable cause, and it seems that Governor Jan Brewer isn’t quite sure, either. And this bill isn’t actually tackling the problem of illegal immigration. It doesn’t propose ways of keeping illegal immigrants out. It simply says that the cops can ask any person at any time to prove their status.

So what could Arizona do to make me (and a large number of other people) happy? Actually detail some ways that police could have reasonable suspicion that an individual is an immigrant. Publish this list in high profile places where almost everybody can get access to it. And then start enacting procedures that deal with the heart of the problem instead of the aftermath.

And for the record, I raise my glass to Officer Martin H. Escobar. I believe that small acts can be heroic, and he’s my hero of the week. He’s a legal immigrant, now citizen of the US who is being asked to do something that he feels is not only wrong but unconstitutional. And he’s using the system to protest the bill.

© 2012 Pagan+Politics Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha