Sunday, June 3, 2018

Of Trespassers and Invaders and the Uninvited in Our Homes

   Suppose a family moved in from New Jersey and was greeted with outrage by neighbors who suggested they were invading their neighborhood. Suppose they told them they were trespassing.
   Would be silly, wouldn't it.
   So, why do we so label those who come from Mexico? Are they really trespassing? Are they truly invaders? We don't use such strong language on escaped convicts, even though the only legal place they are suppose to be is in jail. Nor do we use it on those intoxicated in public, even though they might be in places where public intoxication is in violation of the law.
   I would imagine somewhere, a staunch gun-rights advocate might carry a gun into a store where it is posted that guns aren't allowed.
   A trespasser, then? An invader?
   And, what of the person who smokes in front of public buildings, in violation of the law? Is he, too, a trespasser, an invader?
   My point is, the language we use on the undocumented just isn't fair. It isn't just. It's inflammatory. We do not use it on others who wander into places in violation of the law. Why on the immigrant -- and on the immigrant, alone?
   Are we bigots, to pick on the immigrant and not to equally be outraged with the presence of others?
   One might argue that the difference is that the escaped convict and the public-intoxicated and the gun-bearer and the smoker all are citizens. The immigrant is not. All the others, jointly with the rest of us, own this land called America. They might be in places they shouldn't be, but at least they are owners.
   And, that is where their argument falls apart. This is where their whole "invader" and "trespasser" analogy is found to be inaccurate and wrong. Do we own the land in the same sense as a person who has bought a property lot? Is it the same thing? You are always welcome on your own property, aren't you? If that property really is yours, you can smoke and drink on it all you want. If that property is, of a truth, yours, no one can march in and post a sign saying, "No smoking or drinking, or you will be asked to leave."
   So, the analogy has fallen apart.
   This analogy is often taken a step further. t goes like this: If someone moves in uninvited from outside the country, it is the same thing as someone walking into your personal home and assuming the right to live there. If you are all so fired up about letting immigrants in, why don't you let them move into your personal home? goes the argument.
   I wonder at us -- whether we should be buying into this analogy/argument. It suggests an immigrant arriving from another country is equal to someone walking into our home and making themselves welcome. Well, no, it is not equal -- at all. It would be wonderful if we were not persuaded by such a false  and wrongful analogy. The accusation is unfair and unjust and inflammatory. The immigrant might be here in America wrongfully, and it is understandable that some would therefore want him to leave, but to suggest his coming is literally the same thing as someone moving into our home is a gross overstatement. It is a false analogy calculated by those creating it to do unjust and hateful damage, and, next time we hear it -- rather than buying into it and passing it along --  we ought to recognize it for what it is -- an accusation intended to inflame our feelings against the immigrant. It is a false assertion intended to foment hatred.
   In conclusion, shall we call them trespassers and invaders? Is using such language being fair? Overstatement does nothing for the value of justice. Justice is only devalued when lies are employed. Bless us that we are not buying into such false analogies and arguments.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment