Burma, The Book of Mormon, and the Immigration Conundrum

I was raised conservative. My political views have shifted significantly over the past 20 years of my life, but I come from conservative background, and in many ways still identify more with “conservative” than I do “liberal.” However one thing that I have never been able to grasp is the stance of many conservatives against immigration. Even in my truest reddest Republican days, I never could make sense of this position. Open immigration is a free-market idea. Being pro free-trade and anti-immigration is a completely contradictory and hypocritical stance. Recent events have made the stance of conservatives further isolate them from being successful.

            I always hated the term “compassionate conservative” applied to some conservatives because it implies that conservatives are not compassionate, which I do not think is true. However, recent events in Texas and on the border have tested my thesis, so I bet conservatives everywhere to prove that they are indeed compassionate people by their treatment of individuals as individuals regardless of what side of an imaginary line they happened to be born on.

The Current Situation

The most important thing to understand about the current border situation is that the flood of immigrants is almost entirely driven by U.S. foreign and drug policy.

The immigrants are not coming from Mexico; they are coming from Central America. Central America is a place that has been repeatedly destroyed by U.S. foreign policy. There is hardly a country in Central America that has not had the slimy octopus tentacles of U.S. intervention. The U.S. has propped up multiple dictators, helped dispose of democratically elected governments, supported rebels. You name it; the U.S. has done it in Central America. It is no wonder that the place is in complete turmoil. As is obvious now from Iraq, U.S. intervention rarely helps to eliminate violence and increase stability, in fact all the opposite.

The drug war in the United States has forced the militarization of an entire industry to protect itself from the U.S. military and the DEA. This has turned the drug war into a real war with real human casualties. It replaces peaceful voluntary exchange with violence. It does nothing to eliminate or lower drug usage, and it creates violence both here in the U.S. and abroad, particularly in south and Central America.

The U.S. government through foreign intervention and drug policy has turned entire countries into war-zones.  Honduras is one of the most violent and dangerous countries in the world. Central America is loaded with violence, much of which can be directly attributed to U.S. involvement. With this in mind, the idea that we would turn away children fleeing from violence that our government created, is so repulsive and disgusting to me, I do not see how any loving human being could embrace this idea.

The bottom line these are people; real life human beings who happened to be born on the other side of an imaginary line. They have cares, dreams, and hopes. They have been on one of the most treacherous and dangerous journeys imaginable. They are victims of violence sewn by our government, and they arrive at our door step and we are going to say we hate you and get out? Where is our humanity?

In this essay I want to give some examples that will hopefully appeal to conservatives as to why they, more than anyone, should be more open and loving towards immigration and immigrants. There is no excuse for the hate being spread against immigrants.

The Karen people from Burma

            The Karen are an ethnic group from Burma (Myanmar). During World War II they supported the British in Burma, which caused a lot of animosity from the majority ethnic group: the Burmese. In 1949 just after Burma was granted independence, conflict arose. Since 1949, there has been conflict between the Karen people and the Burmese government. It is one of the longest civil wars on the planet.

The Burmese have attempted to carry out a systematic extermination and genocide of the Karen people. Many Karen fled the terror in Burma to neighboring Thailand. Had the Thai government done nothing except to grant these victims free exercise of their rights of life, liberty, and property, this large work force and potential market would have built and helped lift a struggling Thai economy. Besides basic police protection they would have had essentially no burden on the government while benefiting the economy.

Instead the strict immigration policies would not allow the entrance of the persecuted people into Thailand. People in Thailand were so worried about having more job competition that they turned away people who were on the brink of starvation. People who were eating tree bark just to make their hunger pains not be so intense, people who had had their entire villages livelihoods burned to the ground, people who had seen brothers and fathers and cousins tortured in the most horrific of ways. Can you imagine? Oh, but they might take a job, they may want to work to support their family. That of course cannot be. We cannot have people working to support their families here, so send them back, send them back face death and starvation on the other side of this imaginary line.

A group of Karen refugees eat traditional food in Salt Lake City

The Karen people were forced for many years to straddle the border. When the Burmese military was getting close they would flee to the Thai side, when the Thai police came, they would flee to the Burma side. Needless to say, living conditions were far from ideal and people died. Eventually because of international pressure, refugee camps were set up. These camps granted some (limited) protection from the aggression of the Burmese military, but did not grant the refugees much opportunity. They could not work and chase their dreams, they had to live their entire lives in a few acre area. If they did leave they were outlaws and were constantly at risk of being caught by the Thai police who were notoriously corrupt.

What is one of the saddest parts about the whole situation is that instead of working and contributing to the Thai economy as would have been the case had they been granted entrance, the refugees became a burden on the economy. The Thai government (with the UN) had to feed the refugees, and the refugees with little to no opportunities in the camp were left with no motivation to get an education and succeed. Drug use and other problems became rampant. Hopelessness became epidemic. Of course if anyone was put in a small compound with no opportunity for growth or ever leaving that small area, they would get infected with hopelessness as well.

So not only did the Thai government turn away the victims of violence, they hurt themselves and destroyed even more lives through complete enabling and taking of opportunity from those that did survive. (For more information on Karen refugees and the Karen people see KarenRefugeeVoices.com.)

How is the situation of the Karen people and the Thai government, any different than the United States current immigration “problems”? There is essentially none. The option is clear. We either treat these victims of violence as human beings and let them work and contribute in our economy, or we shun them. We turn them back to their homelands to be killed, or we put them in some sort of refugee camp where they will become dependent on the government, cost the government money, destroy their own lives, and not help anyone else either.

The choice is clear and easy: acceptance and love is the only way.

For LDS readers, Examples from The Book of Mormon.

            A few years back in Utah, the immigration debate exploded. Rarely does the L.D.S. church take a stance on any political issue, but with immigration they did, with not one but multiple press releases. Although not extremely direct the first went against any SB270 Arizona type law and supported compassion and caring in regards to immigration. They then supported a guest worker program that was supported by the Utah legislature. The church referred people to this editorial from the Deseret News when asked about immigration.

            I thought for sure this would lead to Utah becoming a model of compassionate immigration reform. The legislature passed HB116 as a guest worker program focused on getting people here legally, instead of keeping people out. It appeared as if Utah was at least open to a more rational and compassionate approach.

            However, just when everything was going so well, the Republican caucus met and voted for a repeal of HB 116. They even went to so far as to call those that passed it “traitors to Utah”. Many of the caucus also called for a stricter, Arizona-style immigration law. It seemed as if not even the state’s prominent religion was able to curb the vitriol of some conservatives. It was very discouraging. However, based on polls, it appeared that those “hard-liners” were a small vocal minority. 

I would hope that the U.S. and particularly Utah would be an example of welcoming immigrants with compassion and love. The Book of Mormon has many examples that support the idea of a more open immigration policy.

Case 1: Omni 1: 12-14

            In these versus the people of Nephi are the immigrants (or refugees) escaping aggression from the Lamanites and were probably a good-sized group of people.  They find the land of Zarahemla.  One might think with this huge influx of people from another group that the native inhabitants would be angry. But the Book of Mormon says nothing about rallies and protests because these “immigrants were taking their jobs.” There does not appear to be any anger or animosity from the Mulekites (the people already living in the land of Zarahemla) toward the people of Nephi. In fact it appears to be all the opposite: “There was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla.”

Case 2: Mosiah 24:25 - Mosiah 25

            In this section of the Book of Mormon the people of Zeniff and the people of Alma return to the land of Zarahemla after being away for a couple of generations in the land of the Lamanites. This group was also the victim of violence from the Lamanites, and fled to live with the people of Zarahemla. The groups were also of considerable size and yet once again the Book or Mormon makes no mention of anger or contention about a competitive job market or education possibilities. Rather, just the opposite: “King Mosiah did also receive them with joy.”

Case 3: Alma 27:5-23

            In these versus a group of the Lamanites (bitter enemies of the Nephites at the time) converts to the religion of the Nephites. As this group is now a persecuted group among the Lamanites they decide to seek refuge in the neighboring nation of the Nephites, their former enemies (sounds somewhat familiar to some similar modern situations). Once again this group of people is not turned away with the excuse of not having the proper documentation. They were not subject to all sorts of legal obstacles, or put in tight refugee camps, but rather welcomed as fellow-citizens, given freedom, land, and protection.

            All of these are interesting cases from the Book of Mormon on how immigration was handled, and I feel case enough to support compassion and understanding in the immigration debate.

The New Testament and Final Comments

            Conservatives more than anyone should embrace a more-open immigration policy: it is based in free-markets and free-trade and encourages more freedom. David Brooks quotes a study from the National Opinion Research center that shows that, “Those who express less tolerance toward a variety of minority groups also are more hostile to capitalism.” Capitalism is all about freedom and trust of other people to do what is right. If conservatives claim to be those that support capitalism, freedom, and the “American Dream” they must be willing to grant freedom, capitalism, and the opportunity to live the American Dream to those on the other side of the imaginary line.

            Christ said the second great commandment was to “love they neighbor as thyself.” Neighbor means any human being. Christ even gives an example of someone from a different group and place as being a “neighbor.” There is no asterisk in the verse that says only those of the same nationality. In fact the New Testament does not give much credence at all to nationality. Regardless of the nation they are born in, regardless of what side of the line they were born on they are still people, they are still neighbors, and as such deserve our love and compassion. 

An open letter to conservatives (Part 3): What the GOP must change to be viable

The Republican Party has some major problems. Isolating voters, branding, inconsistency, and hypocrisy come to mind. These 6 changes need to happen for them to become viable, without losing their true principles. What is more, this will bring them more in line with constitutional principles.

6 things (discussed below): a rational foreign policy, a rational immigration policy, a reasonable approach to climate change and the environment, a more accepting and federalist approach to social issues, real fiscal conservatism, and learning to negotiate and compromise.

1.      A rational foreign policy. The Republican Party must adopt a rational foreign policy. For too long the party has supported fighting wars of aggression oversees and spend valuable tax dollars bombing civilians and propping up foreign dictators. The party that was voted got us out of Vietnam and Korea needs to start promoting the kind of foreign policy it used to have and that George Washington suggested: worry about problems here at home, and not in Europe or anywhere else. Looking back on history the sad truth is that despite our often good intentions, the United States’ involvement in oversees conflicts has led to wasted lives and turmoil in those country. Afghanistan (the first time), and central and south America have been evidence of that. Can we say we are pro-liberty while propping up dictators oversees who happen to be our friends? Can we say we are pro-life when we kill thousands of innocent civilians? Our people are needlessly dying, as are those of other foreign countries, it is time for the GOP to take a rational approach to this issue. Yes we need a strong national defense, but we don’t need to be oversees building other people’s bridges, when we have bridges here that need fixing. We already spend over 4 times any other country on military. When will it stop? More money on military makes us safer as more money on education makes us smarter. It doesn’t. Yes there needs to be an investment, but we need to be rational, endless foreign wars of aggression is not the answer. We should focus on working with Democrats to bring the troops home, close oversees bases to save money, and in general downsize the military focusing purely on defense, not offense.

2.      A rational immigration policy. This election made it clear, the republicans need Latinos. What is more, Americans need Latinos. It is time the Republican party take a more open approach to immigration by realizing immigration is a good thing. Once again this is more aligned with conservative principles of Liberty and Life. Why can’t we let people freely move here? If we believe in Liberty we must. I don’t want this to come across wrong, but it is essentially the same principle as free-trade. If they can do a better job for a better price, why not let them do it, that will drop the cost for everyone, and free workers up to be able to do things where they can benefit more people. Obviously we can take a hard line on illegal immigration, but fences are just ridiculous, communist countries build walls and fences, not free countries. Most illegal problems would be solved by making legal immigration (at least a work-visa situation) easy and cheap. Anyone who wants to come should be able to with a nominal fee and background check. Then we can truly live the saying on the statue of liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

3.      Rational approach to the environment and climate change. Accept the Science. Republicans cannot deny it, and should not as it will only make them come across and bigoted and anti-intellectual. That is an image the Republicans desperately need to shake. Republicans should be the party of intellect and education. The message needs to be one of truth, and therefore accept what science is accepting as fact. Climate change and global warming are real, why any politician would or should deny this is beyond me. Now the causes of climate change are not so clear, and how much man has played a part. There are clear signs that lots of it is our fault. And I don’t think anyone would deny that being environmentally conscience is a good thing. We can accept it is real, and recognize it is up to individuals mostly to make changes. Companies and individuals are doing this voluntarily and it will continue, we ought to be encouraging this, as that is what we want, less government, more people. Also stats could be encouraged to work out their own particular environmental policies to encourage a clean future for everyone. In general have a genuine and honest discusion about what, if anything, the federal government could/should do to change anything.

4.      On social issues, focus on federalism. Here is another inconsistency and hypocrisy that sends people packing from the GOP. We want freedom, yet we want to tell people in other states about their personal lives and what they can consume. There is a logical approach to this that does not alienate social conservatives and is more in line with principles of liberty than even the libertarian view (in my opinion) it is called federalism, I wrote an article on it here. This should be our approach. Also on LGBTQ issues, if we adopted a fair tax, or closed loopholes and benefits in the tax code, then gay marriage would not be such a big issue. At that point it literally becomes about the definition of a word. That could easily be left to the states to hash out, other words change meaning from New York to Texas, I don’t see why this word couldn’t either, as long as we eliminate the tax code loopholes and benefits that benefit people living in a married relationship.

5.      Be real fiscal-conservatives. The supposedly “fiscally conservative” party has been anything but in recent years. George W. Bush out spent and out-debted his democratic predecessor by a pretty unhealthy margin, and we wonder why people can’t identify with the party? If we actually pursued this principle half as hard as we doggedly pursue keeping “our guys” in office we would be doing pretty well. This is a branding issue. This should be our brand: true fiscal conservatives. Most Americans identify with the need to keep a budget; it is something Republicans should be able to deliver.

6.      Learn to negotiate. If we have the truth, we should be willing to talk to anyone and not fear. We shouldn’t have to shut people out of debates or speeches, especially one of our own. Let’s recognize that the other side has legitimate reasons to believe why they do and engage them in constructive conversation. Let’s learn to compromise, if it means raising taxes on the super-rich for significant spending cuts, why not? A lot could be negotiated with things we should not even be defending, like military cuts, cuts in foreign aid, closing loopholes for corporations, and more.

These changes will not only widen the appeal of the GOP. They are more aligned with core principles of life, liberty, and love. We do not need to abandon our principles to win, we need to abandon the principles of the few crazies who have captivated the party and mistaken their social agenda for constitutional principles, when they are not. The party needs to rebrand itself not as the anti-intellectual, anti-immigrant, white party, but as the intellectual, rational, fiscally-conservative, open-minded party. If some inside the party get mad, those people will just have to realize what the party is about.

Life, Liberty, and Love: these should be our guiding principles. Following the constitution could go a long way, especially for Republicans.

An open letter to conservatives (Part 1): why the election does not matter, but you do.

As was inevitable Tuesday night, half of the country felt elated, while half were overwhelmed with a wave of depression, anxiety, and ulcers. I also fell into this emotional whirlpool despite my attempt to distance myself from it by voting third party. Secretly, deep down somewhere, I really hoped Mitt Romney would come out victorious, even if it was just to prove some pollsters wrong. Furthermore some of the local races didn’t go my way either. And so gloom surrounded me.

I began analyzing these feelings and had to slap myself, as should the rest of Conservadum. Was I a different person because of the outcome of the election? Were the people of the United States any different? NO! We are the exact same people as we were Tuesday night at 6 p.m. as we were at 10 p.m. We were personally no more “losers” than the other guys were “winners." So why were so many depressed then? The reason is because we believed a false idea completely contrary to the ideas of liberty: that government can solve our problems.

The questions we have to ask ourselves is whether we are personally more independent? Are we personally more capable of being free from government than we were before? Are we more capable of helping our fellow man? 

These are the question that matter, not who for whom we will vote.

The sooner conservatives realize that liberty will not come from spending millions on TV adds to try and get someone elected, the better. Liberty will come when those millions are instead spent on private charity to help people get food, job training, and health care. That is when liberty will come, when the American people stand up and show that we can do it, and we can do it without government. This is our fight for winning. If you truly believe in liberty’s message, you understand that people solve problems, not government. That means while others are petitioning government, and spending money to get government to do something about problem X, we should be out actually doing something about problem X.

In reality a Mitt Romney win would have been just as false as this supposed loss. If he had won would people have understood liberty any more than they do now? Would people be any different, depend on government any less than they do now? NO! Simply advertisements and publicity got them to vote for Mitt Romney for being slightly better (often for reasons not having anything to do with real principles) better than Barak Obama. It is not like anyone would have come to understand truth any better, and that is what matters.

The battles for America’s future will not happen at the ballot box. Forget all that junk Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh say about this being the most important decision of our lives. It is not, it was not, it never will be. The most important decisions of our lives are decisions to tell the truth even though it is advantageous to lie, decisions to live our beliefs, even when it would be convenient to forget them, decisions to live morally, to serve others, and be good citizens. Those are the decisions that matter; those are decisions that actually change people’s minds, decisions that truly help people understand liberty. Our decision to help our neighbors read, and volunteering at schools, and sharing the great books of history does more to influence America’s future than any decision you will ever make at the ballot box.
               
Elections follow automatically if the principles of honesty and liberty are being practiced in homes and communities. The people get the leaders they deserve. If we want to change America, we need to change ourselves. We need to live independently, we need to live charitably, and compassionately, we need to love all people regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual-orientation, or whatever else. The principles of liberty can only survive if we have an honest, hard-working, and indeed loving people. If we don’t become those people, we can never win.
               
As we become those people and work on converting people to Liberty and Truth, and not Mitt Romney, or whoever else, we will win. People will see the difference and know the truth. We can be better every day. We can become more educated and search for truth in everything. If we spend our time understanding truth, instead of arguing over personalities and trivialities, we will win.
               
It is ours to win, but it takes a people who are dedicated to living honestly and justly every day of the year, not just on Election Day. People who believe government can solve all of our problems ask for your vote. People who believe in Liberty ask much, much more, they ask for your life and your responsibility. This is not an easy task, but it is possible.

The election should simply be a thermometer of where we are, and why spend millions changing the thermometer? We should spend our time and effort changing what it is measuring, and it is measuring ourselves.
               
The long and short is this: Truth will win if we stand up and live truth, if we shun government entitlements at all costs, and embrace independence, philanthropy, service, and charity. Love is the most powerful force on this earth, if we employ it on our side, we will win, if we don’t, we will lose. It really is all about love, conservatives need to realize that and live it. That is their only hope.