The Houston Chronicle published the following post from the blog Texas Liberal. It's about sanctuary cities.
The term sanctuary is interesting. It connotes something religious - after all the sanctuary (at least for Catholics) is the holiest section of the church building. I remember in Catholic school (yes I was educated by nuns), they used to tell us stories of how people would be running from someone trying to kill them. The people would knock at the door of the church, the priest would let them in and protect them from the dangers outside. In medieval times especially, this was a sacred rule.
You can say that Houston is partially a sanctuary city. Police are not everywhere checking people's residency documents. But there are many individuals who are still detained and deported. The ICE detainment center in north Houston is full of people.
The blog's author cites a book by Gary Anderson:
There are two issues mentioned in the Anderson citation that are very relevant to our times. One is that the army had assured them [Cheyenne and Arapahos] of the regions' safety, which reminds me of our, until recently, policy on undocumented immigration. The twelve million are here because we (meaning the U.S.) have offered them jobs and relative safety from deportation. Not doing anything is also a way of the U.S. saying "we are ok with you being here, we will not persecute you."Here is an example of a pledge of sanctuary in 19th-century American history from a book called Sitting Bull and the Paradox of Lakota Nationhood by Gary Anderson.
From the book---
"Several hundred Cheyennes and Arapahos had settled at Sand Creek in southeastern Colorado after the army had assured them of the regions' safety. Unfortunately, a vengeful colonel in the Colorado militia, John Chivington had no intention of honoring this sanctuary. He attacked the village and killed several hundred people."
Secondly, Anderson points to a "vengeful colonel" who did not honor the sanctuary. In that situation it was one person. This may be true in Anderson's story, but generally it is a group of people that undertake the raiding of villages and the killing of hundreds of people (or conduct ICE raids). The person leading, represents the sentiments of the larger group. In other words, it is not only one "bad person" that plans and executes the attack.
The U.S. is the colonel in Anderson's story. It no longer has "any intention" of honoring sanctuary for undocumented people. What does this mean about our society?
-----
The Houston Chronicle published this post from http://texasliberal.wordpress.com
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?plckPersonaPage=PersonaProfile&plckUserId=texasliberal&newspaperUserId=texasliberalPosted 1/15/2008 10:36 PM CSTIs Houston, Texas a so-called sanctuary city for illegal or undocumented immigrants?
This is an ongoing subject of debate in Houston.
The core of the matter is do police and other officials ask people they come in contact with, if they are legally in the United States.
It seems that on the whole, whatever city officials might claim, the basic policy of Houston and much of the surrounding area conforms with the idea of a sanctuary city.
Though here is a conflicting view from the Houston Catholic Worker.
From the Catholic Worker article, here are some proposed immigration policy guidelines from the Catholic Bishops of California.
--Easily available temporary visas for those willing to work
- Improved border security and enhanced humanitarian training for border guards
- Fair and equitable rules and reasonable time frames for processing applications to become legal permanent residents
- Compassionate rules and practical time frames for family reunification for legal resident aliens and naturalized citizens
- Reasonable requirements for legal residents to become citizens.
- Recognition of the impact of globalization and free trade on patterns of migration.
I support the idea of Houston being a sanctuary city for the following reasons---
1. It is the job of the federal government to police immigration. The federal government can't come up with a coherent policy.
2. Allowing immigrants to go about their affairs reflects the fact that much of our local economy turns of the work these people do and that Houston residents don't complain about cheap prices brought about by cheap labor.
3. It would inject a measure of humanity into a city that has, justifiably, pollution, massive freeways lined with billboards, and longstanding poverty, as a large part of what it is know for across the country.
Of course the promise of sanctuary is only as good as the people making the promise.
Here is an example of a pledge of sanctuary in 19th-century American history from a book called Sitting Bull and the Paradox of Lakota Nationhood by Gary Anderson.
From the book---
"Several hundred Cheyennes and Arapahos had settled at Sand Creek in southeastern Colorado after the army had assured them of the regions' safety. Unfortunately, a vengeful colonel in the Colorado militia, John Chivington had no intention of honoring this sanctuary. He attacked the village and killed several hundred people."
I'm not suggesting city officials in Houston or elsewhere in America will shoot undocumented people. You don't have to shoot them when they die crossing the desert or coming to America on a leaky boat.
Who cares how they got here as long as we can get cheap labor when needed, or have a ready made political issue when that is what is required.
Promises of sanctuary are as good as the political needs of the politicians, and as good as the morality of the electorate when they feel under economic stress.
Which in short means that Hispanic folks and other immigrants from across the world had better start registering to vote and taking part in the political process.
No comments:
Post a Comment