OfflineIn response to increasing hostility towards immigrants, Latin/Hispanic immigrants in particular, both in the public sentiment and legislation, a New Sanctuary Movement has emerged. The UUA is the only religious organization that has signed on to the New Sanctuary Movement. I'm quite proud of this as I see it as us living our values - respecting the inherent worth and dignity of all and relating to others with justice, equity, and compassion (our first two principles). For as long as there is such gross economic inequity between countries, I cannot fault anyone for trying to make a better life for their kids even if it isn't "legal." I take seriously the idea of "Welcoming the Stranger."
So I was more than a little surprised a couple of days ago to find that some of my fellow UUs favor "securing the border" between the U.S. and Mexico. First, I don't know what "securing" means if it doesn't mean force. And second, what about the recognition that it's the economic inequity that is causing this influx? What about the recognition that our country, despite its protestations, actually depends on cheap immigrant labor to function? What about welcoming those most in need?
But I am aware that there may be something that I am missing here. What do other UUs think?
I have to say that I was also surprised that no one suggested this topic for the new CSAI (congregational study action issue) because there's a lot to study and discuss here.
I am, unfortunately, not at all surprised at the strength of anti-immigration sentiment among UUs. In fact, I left one of the listservs (uu-leaders, I think) a while ago because I was so upset by some of the blatant comments made against Latino immigrants during a discussion of the New Sanctuary Movement. I think compassion will come as we make progress in anti-racism and multiculturalism, progress which is frustratingly slow at least where I live. The anti-Asian sentiment in my congregation is huge ("Asians are already taking over our schools and workplaces) and in nearby San Jose, the former board president told me he'd received an email from a UU saying there was no way he was going to visit their church because of their "pandering" to the Latino community.
I find it notable that in the article you posted recently, it's the nearly all-white churches that are quickest to sign up to support racial injustice. It's easier when they don't see these minority groups as a threat.
That's an interesting idea, having a CSAI around immigration. Somehow I feel that would be too controversial to fly. We have much more work to do before we're ready to tackle such an issue in a way consistent with our principles.
kslnet, namaste.
Sorry to take so long to respond. Summer heat has me slacking off in a number of ways.
What can I say? I visited the San Jose congregation as part of the "Now Is the Time: Building Multicultural Congregations" conference back in February, and I loved the fact that they had a Spanish-speaking service. Again, it goes to whether we really take our own principles seriously. We sang "Spirit of Life" and "Come, come, whoever you are" in Spanish. And even tho I don't speak Spanish and had to rely on an excellent translator, to sing "Come, come, whoever you are" in another language - a language "foreign" to me - really added a lot of meaning to the words.
As for the anti-Asian sentiment, I am familiar with that. Asians, or anyone else for that matter, can only be thought of as "taking over" if they are thought of as "the other." Otherwise, Asians and Latino/Hispanics and Arabs are just the latest waves of immigrants in a country that was founded by immigrants. But I know I am preaching to the choir.
We had a "Theology of Immigration" workshop at General Assembly that was "spirited" but went well. It was well-attended - clearly the topic is of interest, which is why I was surprised no one suggested it as a CSAI - and while people expressed a variety of viewpoints, we managed to stay civil. There is a summary of the workshop on UUA.org.