'Break Their Hearts of Stone'

A call for a kinder, more reasonable approach to immigrants

There’s a recurring song that shows up in the Sunday services at our church entitled Here I Am Lord. I’d attribute three reasons for its popularity: A nice melody, it’s easy to sing (even loudly), and the message is inspiring.

While I’m venturing out on shaky ground, my understanding is it comes from Isaiah 6:8.

“Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: “Whom shall I send, And who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

Well, I don’t claim with this message or others I’ve written to be answering the call of God or that I’m acting as His messenger. There seem to be plenty of others who fit that bill—some to the delight of the world and others less so.

But I do feel compelled, as best I can, to stand against what I perceive as the injustices and unnecessary cruelty inflicted by too many people against their fellow beings, by social norms that treat others as less than equal, and by governmental policy that (in my view) suppresses and at times threatens what Jefferson called “certain inalienable rights.”

There are, as I see it, two ways to take such a stand: One is by bearing witness to the shortcomings and ominous behavior, which in my situation is done through journalism, and the other is to offer alternative, possibly a more prudent path. Neither approach excludes the other; in fact, the better choice is to mix and match.

In regard to the latter, there is the lyric in the song that says “All who dwell in dark and sin, My hand will save. I, who made the stars of night, I will make their darkness bright. Who will bear my light to them? Whom shall I send?”

As the message here shows, written words—whether sung or read—can be inspiring and uplifting—give hope where maybe none seems possible or probable.

In regard to the first alternative, the choice of ‘bearing witness’, another of the song’s lyrics offers guidance: “I, the Lord of snow and rain, I have borne my people’s pain. I have wept for love of them. They turn away. I will break their hearts of stone, Give them hearts for love alone. I will speak my words to them. Whom shall I send?”

There is a long and storied history of people treating ‘the other’—in whatever form this might take—as an unwelcome presence or even a threat; to belittle, dehumanize, and treat them with contempt.

Such behavior seems to be a universal, a shared trait of humankind, which means it can manifest itself here, there, and everywhere. Certainly, our American past and current present, supports such observation.

Immigrants, how they’ve been viewed and treated, have been part of this history. It’s been an uplifting chronology as well as one with regrettable behavior. Often there’s been a tug-of-war with prevailing attitude and a back-and-forth on restrictive versus more open policy. Of course, as a nation of immigrants, the word ‘we’ would be more appropriate.

In addressing the current situation, I’ll start off by saying that a nation, given the current geo-political realities, has a right to secure and regulate its borders, monitor who’s coming in and out of the country, and establish criteria for residency and citizenship. If you feel, as many apparently do, that the system needs reform and improvement, a tightening up if you will, then fine. There are legislative means to seek this improvement and reform. This option has always been there although efforts to pursue such a remedy have, in recent years, fallen victim to political expediency and trepidation.

However, the stepped-up deportation of undocumented immigrants now underway; how this is being proposed and acted upon, promises to add another chapter to the story of people finding ways to “beat upon neighbor near” or from afar and to see only the physical and social differences we might have rather than embracing notions like ‘this shared existence’ and ‘our common plight.’

I find much cause for concern in what’s taking place, how it’s tied together, and the possible consequences.

This concern includes the dragnets intended to cast a wide net regardless of criminal guilt, the large domestic detention centers used to house many of those arrested with a plan for additional facilities that has a resemblance of a gulag in its purpose and practice, sending some of the undocumented immigrants to countries they have no ties to and that likely do not have any support system to assimilate them, and contracting with other countries to imprison certain other deportees—with the name El Salvador coming to mind.

Troubling as well has been the lack of due process with the arrests, incarcerations, and deportations and the distain some officials and others have shown for this legal right, coupled with the questionable claims of immigrants (on the whole) constituting a dire threat to national security and public safety that are used to justify this more draconian approach.

Bothersome also is the rising fear being felt by those residing here legally on green cards and student visas, by ‘The Dreamers (those young people who came to the country as young children and for whom this country is ‘home’), and even by citizens who feel threatened due to their race or ethnicity or whose status might be impacted by a Supreme-Court ruling which changes birthright citizenship.

No one should have to live in undeserved fear. And while entering the country illegally or without proper documentation is a violation of the law and in some cases might justify deportation, seeking a better life—economically or free of violence—is hardly a capital offense or an immoral act. In other words, the response should be appropriate to the offense.

I’m hardly alone in seeing the danger of a slippery slope in what has already taken place and is now occurring at an accelerated pace. The stated purpose has gone from ridding the country of murders and rapists and ‘worst of the worse’ to those who have lived and worked here for years, including many who are seeking asylum as well as a path to citizenship.

Evidence of the increasingly treacherous terrain can be found in recent news stories about immigration officials being told to “jack up immigration-related arrests to at least 3,000 people a day.” Apparently, the previous pace hasn’t been fast enough, and those officials were told they’d be replaced if this quota is not met.

To this end, there is also the recent report stating that ‘Senior U.S. immigration officials have instructed rank-and-file officers to “turn the creative knob up to 11” when it comes to enforcement, including interviewing and potentially arresting people they called “collaterals”, according to internal agency emails viewed by the Guardian (an online news publication). ‘Officers were also urged to increase apprehensions and think up tactics to “push the envelope” one email said, with staff encouraged to come up with new ways of increasing arrests and suggesting them to superiors,” with another message saying that “If it involves handcuffs on wrists, it’s probably worth pursuing.”

A story from ABC News indicated that “Federal agents are arresting migrants at immigration courts—in some cases after their deportation cases have been dismissed—in the Trump administration's latest tactic to fast-track deportations, immigration attorneys have told the network reporters.”

“The attorneys said that immigration enforcement officers have been waiting in immigration court buildings and arresting migrants who have had their cases dismissed, after which the migrants are placed into expedited removal proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security,” the story stated.

The slippery slope is evident as well in the recent arrests of the mayor and Congresswoman in New Jersey for showing up at a deportation center and the threat of arrest aimed at the governor of California and mayor of Los Angles by Administration officials if either or both are deemed to have interfered with the roundups now going on in that city—enforcement actions that have led to protests and which President Trump has countered by sending National Guard troops to the city.

The use of the military for quelling civil unrest is not usual, but it comes on the heels of the announcement that troops would be used to aid and assist in the stepped-up deportation effort.

Political and social opposition is more and more being characterized as unlawful—not just in these two situations, but elsewhere and with other disputed issues. The word ‘treason’ is being bandied about in an alarming manner since this removes the protection of ‘free speech’ and can put the person in prison. “Having a chilling effect” is how it’s described and is probably being done with this purpose in mind.

As the last Presidential election once again demonstrated, the nation—at least those who vote—is nearly evenly divided in its political preferences and on such issues as immigration and the presence of immigrants residing here. True, those numbers are not spread out evenly in all 50 states but are instead a patchwork. Still, given this split of opinion, the words ‘moderation’, ‘compromise’, and ‘agreeable accommodation’ come to mind as being prudent and a means to a resolution.

What’s occurring instead, the danger that has always existed in our ‘winner take all’ system of representative governance, is that the levers of power are being used to push this agenda of both deporting and imprisoning undocumented immigrants and running roughshod over those who express an opposing view.

It seems a hard-hearted approach, not becoming of our better instincts and the helping hand and generous attitude we, as individuals and a nation, have so often shown to others less fortunate or in need of assistance. Hopefully, this attitude will extend to taking a kinder, more reasonable approach to immigrants. To see them not as a threat or ‘the other’ but rather (like all of us) worthy of saving grace.

Steve Horton is a mid-Michigan journalist.