Immigration and Indigenous Theology -- Sightings

Immigration reform continues to be a contentious and divisive issue, which we have been unable and unwilling to tackle.  Ideology is part of the problem.  Knowing and understanding our history is another.  In this Sighting's essay, Unitarian Universalist Minister Chris Bossen shares his encounter with Indigenous Right's activist and theologian Tupac Enrique Acosta as they were incarcerated for protesting against the Arizona Immigration Law.  Included is a video of Tupac Enrique speaking at a session led by Cornel West.  Watch the video and then read Bossen's essay.  Ponder the contention that the debate is being influenced by a "Christian Doctrine of Discovery" that dates back to 1492.  Consider with me what this issue means for all of us who live within the borders of the nation called the United States of America.

Sightings 2/10/2011

Immigration and Indigenous Theology

-- Colin Bossen

I did not go to jail expecting to meet a theologian. But jail was where I met Tupac Enrique Acosta. Tupac, like me, was arrested in front of one of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s offices for protesting against Arizona's anti-immigrant law SB1070 on July 29, 2010. Unlike me, Tupac had an analysis of the bill's place in history that put it firmly within the context of the ongoing repression of the indigenous peoples of North America.

Tupac, who would probably reject the label theologian, is the leading figure behind the Phoenix-based Nahuacalli, an organization that describes itself as "A Cultural Embassy of the Indigenous Peoples." He is also closely linked with Puente, the grassroots organization behind many protests against SB1070 in Phoenix, and Puente's leader Salvador Reza. Understanding his views on SB1070 illuminates that, for some, the struggle over immigration is about something larger.

In Tupac's view the history of SB1070 does not begin in 2010. It begins in 1492 with Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Western Hemisphere. Columbus's "discovery" of the Americas prompted European political and religious leaders to develop what indigenous activists refer to as the "Christian Doctrine of Discovery." This is the belief that because the lands of the Western Hemisphere were without Christians prior to 1492 they were free for the taking upon "discovery." For activists like Tupac, the issues as stake in SB1070 are not so much political as theological.

Tupac shared his analysis with me as we waited to be processed through the legal system in holding cells and, later, when we were bunkmates in the cell block. More than once our conversations were interrupted when we were moved, it appeared arbitrarily, between cells. They were also interrupted when the Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio came into our cell to "talk" with us. Sheriff Arpaio, who is currently under investigation by the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, runs what he likes to call "America's toughest jail." He is known for his tactics of intimidating and dehumanizing prisoners, including trying to humiliate male prisoners by placing them in pink underwear and pink handcuffs.

Rather than intimidate us, Arpaio served as an unwitting example for our impromptu seminar on the Christian Doctrine of Discovery. Tupac suggested to me that the logical outcome of a legal system grounded in such a doctrine is laws like SB1070 and men like Sheriff Arpaio. SB1070 would not exist without the doctrine. Arpaio exists to enforce it.

As we sat together in jail Tupac traced the history of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery from its origin to its often unacknowledged presence in contemporary debates about immigration. He suggested that the doctrine was first articulated in Pope Alexander VI's 1493 Papal Bull "Inter Caetera" and the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas between Spain and Portugal. Together these documents created a theological and legal framework that justified the expropriation and division of indigenous lands by Spain and Portugal.

In the view of Tupac and many indigenous legal scholars the framework created to facilitate the seizure of indigenous lands continues to form the core of much of federal property law today. This is particularly true as it relates to indigenous property claims. The indigenous legal scholar Steven Newcomb, for example, has found traces of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery within U.S. Supreme Court cases as recently as 2001.

Tupac believes that the principles of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery are operative in SB1070 as well. As he told me, "the purpose of SB1070 was to consolidate the perceptions of some white Americans around the idea of an America that is white in a continent that belongs to them." In his view, SB1070 is just another attempt to assert non-indigenous dominance over the continent. After all, SB1070 is designed to enforce a border that divides not only the United States and Mexico but the indigenous peoples who belong to the Uto-Aztecan language group. They have been moving back and forth between what is now the U.S. and Mexico long before either country existed. SB1070 criminalizes their traditional freedom of movement.

As Tupac understands it, the struggle against SB1070 is the continuing indigenous struggle against colonialism. As he said in a talk, "When we did that marching... we didn't come to legalize ourselves before the state of Arizona. We came to legalize Arizona... Now, let's get this clear, colonization is illegal... If we're going to legalize Arizona we have to decolonize Arizona." Elsewhere he has written that "SB1070 is not a law." He makes this claim because he believes that the entire framework of laws governing immigration rest upon the Christian Doctrine of Discovery. For him, the Mexican and Central American migrants are indigenous and those who would keep them from coming to the United States are the descendants of colonizers.

Tupac and I were briefly reunited when I travelled back to Arizona to stand trial. After a day-long trial which touched on none of these issues the judge ruled us not guilty. Then Tupac set to work again to educate people about the Christian Doctrine of Discovery and passed around a flyer titled "SB1070 is Not a Law."

References

Steven Newcomb, Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (Fulcrum Publishing, 2008).

Vine Deloria, Jr., God is Red: A Native View of Religion (Fulcrum Publishing, 1994).

Watch Tupac Enrique on a panel with Cornell West at North High School in Phoenix on October 2, 2010 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6t2esf1Hgk.

The Nahuacalli official website can be found at http://www.nahuacalli.org//.

Colin Bossen is minister of the Unitarian Universalist Society of Cleveland. He keeps a blog at http://infidelity.blogsome.com//.

----------

In this month's Religion and Culture Web Forum, Jessica DeCou offers a comic interpretation of the theology of Karl Barth, bringing his work into a surprising and fruitful dialogue with the comedy of Craig Ferguson. Both men, she contends, “employ similar forms of humor in their efforts to unmask the absurdity and irrationality of our submission to arbitrary human powers.” The humor of Barth and Ferguson alike stresses human limitation against illusory deification. DeCou argues for understanding both the humor and the famous combativeness of Barth's theology as part of this single project, carried out against modern Neo-Protestant theology. The Religion and Culture Web Forum is at: http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

A Busy Senate Season

There can be no Holidays for the US Senate until they finish their business. I know that they want to get home for the Holidays, but there is still a lot of key business to get finished!

They made a good start with the extension of the so-called Bush Tax cuts, which brought about much chagrin among many Democrats, who felt with some justification that the extension of these cuts for the wealthy would broaden the deficit without bringing any real value to the economy. But, there were key benefits for middle class and those on the edge that included not only tax benefits, but also the extension of Unemployment Benefits. The economy is expanding and growing and the recession itself has been over for several months, but the unemployment rate remains stubbornly high. The President met with executives from a number of Blue Chip Companies and again encouraged them to start hiring!

With the tax issue out of the way, at least for now, this week should be a busy one. As members of Congress and their staff pine for vacation, the Senate faces several very important pieces of legislation. If Lame Duck sessions are generally pretty uneventful, you can’t say that for this time around. So, here is a lineup and my response:

1. START Treaty: Treaties require a 2/3 majority to pass and this one faces opposition from certain Republicans – led by John McCain – though one of the biggest proponents of this treaty which would provide not only limits on the nuclear capabilities of Russia and the United States, but it allows for verification of these nuclear capabilities. Currently, without a treaty, we don’t have any way of verifying what the Russians are doing. Why does it matter? Well beyond matters of security, what matters is our leadership in stopping nuclear proliferation. If we want to have unfettered ability to build nukes, then how can we expect other nations to put a limit on themselves. Having nukes in this day and age is a sign of power, whether one intends to use them or not. My sense is that this will pass – GOP demands for more time to discuss the treaty is just stone-walling as they’ve had more than enough time to examine it. The military Brass think it’s important and if they think it’s okay, then shouldn’t we think so as well? 
2. DREAM ACT: Although the winds seem to be blowing against passage, this Senate Bill would make it possible for those young people who came to the country illegally (with their parents) to gain a path to citizenship by either serving in the military or completing not only high school, but also college. The military strongly supports this measure, for it gives an incentive to faithful service in the military – helping recruiting. But, it also gives an incentive for those who came to the country with their parents and who know nothing but this country, a reason to work hard toward a goal that would benefit them, but also this nation. We are a nation of immigrants and a college education is the key to success. I can think of no better way of living out our original national motto – e pluribus unum – than this Act. It may not pass, in large part due to a continued anti-immigrant fervor that is present in the country, but this is a just and right act. I call on the Senate to do the right thing!
3. REPEAL OF DADT: The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which was implemented in 1993 as an interim measure, in large part because Congress wouldn’t support Bill Clinton’s call for ending this discriminatory policy. Well the interim period needs to end. DADT, which allows Gays and Lesbians to serve in the military as long as they don’t reveal their secret is unjust and really a threat to US security. The majority of American people support its repeal. The vast majority of service personnel see no problems with ending this policy – only John McCain and some of the higher Military Brass (mostly Marines) want to continue the policy. On a military side, as we have seen from a recent detailed Pentagon Study, there is no evidence that there would be much if any adverse affects on military preparedness if DADT was ended. In fact, there is a growing recognition that DADT rewards dishonesty and potentially undermines security, as gay and lesbian members of the military are susceptible to blackmail. What is more, there is much more support today for the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the military, than there was when Harry Truman ordered the desegregation of the military in 1948. Again, this is a matter of justice for all Americans. Equality denied for gays and lesbians is equality denied for all Americans, for it makes of them a separate class who are required to live surreptitiously lest they lose their jobs. And as we’ve seen in the most recent military adventures, some of the most skilled members of the military – especially linguists and translators – have turned out to be gay. Thus, the military has lost important contributors to its efforts. Ending DADT will have an impact not only on the military – and that maybe why there is resistance. Ending DADT in the military puts the lie to other elements of society that have engaged in the same practices. That includes the church. Repeal may open up the conversation in a way will be healthy for all.  The good news here is that there appears to be more than enough votes for a stand alone bill for this to pass!

Each Senate Bill is an important piece of legislation. Each will be historic if passed. Each will require at least some degree of bipartisanship. My hope and prayer is that the Senate will act in a way that is just and right. In my mind that involves passage of each piece of legislation. Then, they go home and celebrate the holidays as they see fit, knowing that they have done the right thing!

Arizona, Immigration, and the Law

We heard just the other day that a Federal Court judge had put a stay on implementation of  much of the Arizona iimmigration law.  This stay is based upon the judge's belief that these aspects of the law overstepped constitutional boundaries, and intruded in federal jurisdictions.  It is a decision that is seemingly unpopular with many, one the Arizona governor Jan Brewer has appealed, and one the local sheriff apparently plans to flout.  But it is one applauded by many religious leaders, especially within the Roman Catholic Church.   

I recognize that the Arizona law is in part a reflection of frustration with the inability of the Federal Government to come to grips with immigration.  There have been attempts to rectify the situation, but there hasn't been the political will to accomplish reform, in part because there is no consensus on what  to do, as well as conflicting agendas.  There are business leaders who are largely Republican that want to broaden access for migrant workers, because they need these workers.  These are also the folks who are hiring undocumented workers.  On the other hand there are Democrats who are concerned about civil rights, and thus concerned about the civil rights issues involved, and yet they have constituents concerned about loss of jobs.  Then mix into this a growing nativism, and you have the foundations of a stalemate.

As for the law itself, it simply goes way to far.  Not only does it step on the toes of  the federal government, but it creates untold numbers of problems, including potential for abuse of civil rights.  Proponents of the law say they don't understand why there is all the fuss about producing documents.  But, most of these proponents are white and unlikely to ever be asked to produce such documents such as a birth certificate.  How many of us carry proof of citizenship?   Few if any.  But, if you're Latino, well that's different.  Why?  Because you fit the profile of someone who society believes might be here illegally.    Therefore, one could be a Brit living here illegally, probably having overstayed one's visa, or maybe even a Canadian, but no one would ask for documents, but one could be Latino, having lived here legally one's life, but be required to produce documents -- because they fit the profile.  Suspicions are based on profiles.  You can train the cops and mean well, but the pressure is on in Arizona to show results.  And so rights will be abused.     

Now, what would be best would be for Congress to get behind a reform measure that is realistic and that provides needed security.  I realize in today's political climate that's not likely, but this would be helpful.  It is also time for a broader discussion about immigration.  Why people have come here to the US, and why they continue to come.  Its time w reflect on the benefits that immigration provides to the nation.  After all we are a nation of immigrants.  Even Native Americans migrated here from Asia thousands of years ago.  We also need to recognize that migrants aren't the cause of drug related crimes.  Yes some are involved, but they're not the cause.  The cause is the insatiable appetite on the part of Americans for cocaine and other drugs, signs that the American "war on drugs" has been a failure.

My hope is that the Supreme Court will throw this law out so that we can get on with resolving the real problems.

Welcoming the Stranger -- Reposting

The following essay appeared as a column in the Lompoc Record -- June of 2007.  It speaks of efforts at getting immigration reform.  There appeared hope then that something could be done, but we still remain unable to move forward.  And yet, despite an unwillingness to address the issue, the issue isn't going away.  In fact, the Arizona law that has drawn such oprobrium calls forth from the nation a commitment to move forward quickly on achieving true reform that is just and fair and realistic.   I invite your thoughts.
____________________________

Faith in the Public Square
Lompoc Record
June 17, 2007

Immigration reform is again the subject of debate in the nation's barber shops, pubs, grocery aisles, and break rooms. It's being discussed in blogs, opinion pages, chat rooms, and by e-mail. It's one of those issues that simply won't go away, even though no one seems to agree on a solution.

A bipartisan Senate immigration bill was recently pulled off the table because it became bogged down by amendments and because senators were lobbied hard by opponents on the left and the right. Although there's common agreement that something must be done, and that the proposed bill was less than perfect, the question is, can anything get passed in the present environment.

Politics always makes dealing with contentious issues difficult, and with an unpopular president and a fairly evenly split Congress, compromise is difficult, especially with a presidential election cycle heating up. The debate will continue, even if reform waits to be enacted.

The facts in this debate are quite simple: Twelve million people are living in this country illegally, and every day that number increases. Most are here in search of the “American Dream” of a better life and a hopeful future. This is why immigrants have always come here. Of course there are those who come with malicious intent, but they're the minority. As it always has been, immigrant life is difficult - usually families are separated, immigrants live in cramped quarters, and most try to live under the radar lest they be sent home.

Although this is a political issue, it's also a moral one. It is, in fact, a debate over how we treat the stranger living in our midst. As the politicians debate, they hear a multitude of voices, all with different interests - the business community, agricultural interests, schools, health-care providers, labor unions, and law enforcement. The proposed answers to the current dilemma range from the draconian to the lenient, from immediate deportation to providing a path to citizenship. When we listen to the myriad voices that are seeking our attention, we discover that there's really no consensus, no common will. But, doing nothing won't make the problem go away.

There's another voice - it's actually many different voices - that seeks our attention. That voice is the religious community, and like every segment of the population, it is not of one mind.

I can only speak for myself, but what I say reflects the teachings of my tradition. When I read the Hebrew Bible I find a stream of statements talking about how we should treat the alien. Most of these voices call on us to treat the stranger with respect and dignity. Don't oppress the alien in your midst, Jeremiah says on behalf of God, and I will be with you (Jeremiah 7:5-7). The law encourages equal treatment of the stranger, and encourages farmers to leave out gleanings from the harvest for the poor and the alien dwelling in the country (Leviticus 23:22). Why should they do this? The answer given is simple: “Love the stranger because once you were the stranger in Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:18-19).

What then should I do as an American who is also a person of faith? The answer I seem to hear is this: You were once a stranger, so welcome the stranger who lives in your midst. Baptist theologian David Gushee writes:

“Jesus calls us to love our neighbors as ourselves. He then makes clear that our ‘neighbors' include not just family, friends and folk like us, but also strangers and enemies. Every person is my neighbor, whom I am called to love. The ‘undocumented worker' or ‘illegal alien' is my neighbor.”

Now border security is necessary, but that's not the real issue. The real issue relates to those already here - and their families who haven't yet joined them. For now they live in the shadows and are easily used and abused.

If I listen to my faith, I hear a call to invite the stranger into the light of day so that they might live with dignity. They are, after all, my neighbor and are loved by God. If, as the polls suggest, we‘re a nation of the faithful, then surely we must consider carefully this voice and seek a way forward that's humane and compassionate. These are our brothers and our sisters and members of a common human family, created in the image of God.

Dr. Bob Cornwall [was] pastor of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Lompoc (www.lompocdisciples.org). He blogs at http://pastorbobcornwall.blogspot.com/. 

The Stranger in our Midst

The people of God have long been a wandering people.  The Old Testament is filled with directives concerned with the way the alien is to be treated -- because they had been strangers in a strange land.  From the Torah we hear this directive:

33When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. 34The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.  (Leviticus 19:33-34)

It is in the light of passages such as this that we must hear and consider the debates in this land concerning immigration.  Immigration reform has been stalled for years, in large part because there simply is not the political will to get done what must be done.  The parties are too polarized and thus we find ourselves stalled and the problem worsens. 

It is in that context that the state of Arizona has taken matters into their own hands and enacted a new law that gives the police almost unlimited powers to stop and question a person, whom they might deem to be illegally in the country.  What they have done is criminalize being present in the country without proper documentation.  The possibilities of misuse and abuse of the law are endless.  While nativist sentiment fuels this movement in part, there are a lot of other factors involved as well.  I my mind no good can come of this law.  It will only exacerbate the problem. 

Now, having lived for much of the past 30 years in Southern California (until my recent move to Michigan), I understand the complexities of the issues facing Arizona.  Due to an unwillingness on the part of Congress to address immigration issues, the states bordering Mexico have become increasingly agitated about the costs and dangers of dealing with immigration issues.  Immigration issues impact hospitals, schools, housing stock, crime, and more.  People are exploited for economic gain. 

Although border states must deal most directly with immigration related issues, it's important that we all contribute to them.  Our desire for cheap labor and cheap goods, combined with business interests wanting to make the most profit, has led to the increased use of undocumented immigrant labor.  Undocumented workers don't tend to be unionized, don't complain about hours or pay, will work in less than savory conditions -- but often pay taxes, including Social Security (for benefits they'll never claim).  As for the illegal drug trade -- we fuel this by our insatiable demand for drugs.  It is obvious that the "war on drugs" has failed, and that the demand from the north keeps the drugs flowing.   If immigration reform is to happen, we must take responsibility for our own actions.

So, as an op-ed in the Arizona Republic suggests, Arizona has taken on the aura of a police state.  The people of Arizona recognize that civil liberties are at stake, but they don't seem to care.  And, the likelihood is that a rather extreme sort of leadership likely will come to the fore in Arizona.  Similar movements could emerge in other states -- including California. 

So what do we do?  Jim Wallis has called for churches to not cooperate.  Some are calling for a boycott of Arizona.  But, perhaps the best thing we can do is push for Congress to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform that is fair and just, that recognizes that you can't simply move 11 million (whatever the current number) of people out of the country.  Many of these families have children who have lived all their lives in the states.  For all intents and purposes they are as "American" as I am, only they lack the proper papers.  Businesses also must come clean and obey the law -- as a commentator on NPR said yesterday, if there are no jobs people won't be moving north.

Let us reason together on this and come up with an equitable solution. 

1Let mutual love continue. 2Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it. (Hebrews 13:1-2)