This Thanksgiving, it is indeed proper and right to worship and to give thanks to our God for his many mercies and kindnesses toward us. There is an old Protestant hymn that I still love for this season. It was not written for Thanksgiving Day, as it was written in the 1500’s by the Dutch to celebrate a great naval victory. But, it does express much of what we think about during Thanksgiving.
We gather together to ask the Lord’s blessing;
He chastens and hastens His will to make known.
The wicked oppressing now cease from distressing.
Sing praises to His Name; He forgets not His own.Beside us to guide us, our God with us joining,
Ordaining, maintaining His kingdom divine;
So from the beginning the fight we were winning;
Thou, Lord, were at our side, all glory be Thine!We all do extol Thee, Thou Leader triumphant,
And pray that Thou still our Defender will be.
Let Thy congregation escape tribulation;
Thy Name be ever praised! O Lord, make us free!
Thanksgiving is a time when we do remember that Our Lord does not forget us, that he is in charge of his kingdom divine, that victory will someday be won. We also ask him during Thanksgiving, exactly as we do in the Litany for Peace, that in numberless ways he may guard us and keep us safe. Thanksgiving is a time when we should gather in worship and then gather with our families to give thanks.
It should also be a time to remember that we were aliens and strangers in this land (except for those descended from Native Americans). I find it odd that a nation that pictures the welcome that they received from the Native Americans as a good thing, turns right around a couple of centuries later and tries to set impossible limitations on those who came here under the same conditions as their ancestors did. We remember on Thanksgiving that our ancestors found a welcome while refusing to pass it forward.
So, let us give thanks this Thanksgiving. And, I would suggest that there are some who are descended from the early immigrants who ought to give most especial thanks that their ancestors were not treated by the Native Americans in the same way in which they wish to treat modern immigrants. You know, it is really not about whether they “broke the law” or not. It is about the fact that they were welcomed here, were given jobs by companies who were never prosecuted, had taxes deducted from their paychecks (contrary to popular belief), sent their children to the local schools, and are now considered disposable and returnable with no harm and no foul accruing to us who gave them that welcome.
“And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” – Leviticus 19:33-34
No. Flatly, no. Even in terms of properly defining terms, the Pilgrims are not the same as illegal immigrants. They did not seek to immigrate into the nations of the natives, but to form their own nation. The only way to make a proper comparison there would be if the immigrants attempted to form their own nation north of the Rio Grande, but that is, of course, not what we’re talking about. Likewise, the ‘food assistance’ that the picture speaks of was not the equivalent of welfare, but rather- if we are to be accurate- more of a loan. William Bradford reported that the pilgrims paid back what they were forced by desperate straits to take, within a period of six months or so, as recorded in ‘On Plymouth Plantation.’ For that matter, if the crossing of the Rio Grande took months, with numerous deaths, and the only thing waiting the illegal immigrant was the bitter cold of winter? Then we could compare the sufferings and the ‘exact same circumstances’ under which they have traveled. But they are not the same, not in the least.
Fun note, the natives in their first face-to-face encounter with the Pilgrims fired arrows at them, and were only driven off by exchange of gunfire.
Likewise, depicting the natives as a monolithic culture is inaccurate and borderline offensive. There was no ‘native’ American. They immigrated, fought, conquered, fled, split, wandered, and yes, enslaved, their way to the locations they ended up in. For example, the Wampanoag tribes (the ones depicted in the picture) were driven away from their lands by the Micmac, the Pequot, and the Narrangasett. As a point of fact, that was the deal that the Wampanoag struck with the English- the Wampanoag gave land to them in exchange for a military alliance against their enemies. An agreement the English lived up to.
When the illegal immigrants agree to war against the cartels in exchange for parts of Colorado, we’ll talk comparisons. Until then, again, it’s invalid.
Let us also not forget that, in final analysis, whatever the provocation, the natives started the conflict. Metacom (though also named Philip, as Massasoit and the English had such amiable relationships- saving his life does that) was accused of planning to start a war by one converted native, who later showed up dead. When a group of braves was accused by another convert of being responsible, and they were put to a jury trial (with six more native converts,) and hung for the crime, Metacom called for a war council, and got it. In the first days of King Philip’s War, over HALF of the English settlements were attacked, some burned to the ground. In the end, five thousand natives were killed, to twenty-five hundred English. While the English had many more people, so the losses weren’t as catastrophic, it’s worth noting just how bloody it was, on both sides.
As for the state of the illegals now… ‘impossible limitations’? Truly? We do have a legal immigration system in this country. Would that it would be reformed so as to be as easy as that of the illegal path! Would that the provisions we’ve put into place in recent times applied to those who followed the law as those who did not!
You say that it’s ‘not about whether they broke the law or not,’ but that is, in point of fact, exactly what the point of contention is. Tell me, do other crimes get excused if the criminals are welcomed and pay their taxes? Can we not incarcerate or remove identity thieves? Can we not remove thieves of any sort? If a man steals a piece of property, improves it, settles in it, pays property taxes on it, and sends his children to school from there, does he get to own it?
And ah, the misquotation of scripture. You know better than this. Not only because this is not the Holy Land, we are not a theocracy, and that particular chapter has a whole lot of other commands you likely wouldn’t demand us follow, and thus you’re picking and choosing scripture… it’s also misleading. The word you’re looking for is ‘sojourner,’ or ‘guwr.’ These are those who seek hospitality, those who abide with and assemble with. Legal immigrants, in another word. The word in the previous verse (that you really should’ve quoted, for context,) explains what it means. “You shall not vex him.” The word there is ‘yanah’- to oppress, repress, treat violently, do wrong, etc. The phrase often is used in conjunction to ‘the sword’ or ‘desolation,’ to give an idea for how strong a phrase we’re dealing with, here.
We are not yanah-ing the illegals. Quite the contrary, we have gone above and beyond what we are legally- and honestly, morally- required to do. We have treated them in our hospitals, when- all your protests to the contrary- their taxes do not pay for it. We have allowed their children to go to our schools, which legally we were not required to do. When an idiotic rumor stated that unaccompanied minors would be allowed to immigrate, and tens of thousands streamed across the border, we took care of them and we continue to do so. America is more than large corporations and agriculture, but even then, compare the fate of the illegal in America with the legal immigrant in, say, Qatar, where hundreds have perished to build a World Cup stadium? No, we are not yanah-ing them. We have not left their widows and orphans destitute. We have not stolen what belongs to them. We certainly have not stolen everything they have, as you yourself admit. No, we are doing a lot to, for, and about the illegal immigrants, but yanah is not one of them.
And, lest we forget, we have done this song and dance before. We tried amnesty in 1986, and the results are self-evident. We have tried being ‘welcoming,’ which you oddly use as an indictment, and again, the results are self-evident. Your approach hasn’t worked in nigh on thirty years now, and should we go through the process once more, we will get the same result, only on a far more massive scale. All the while wronging those who attempted to play by the rules, and which we, apparently, do not care enough for to extend the same courtesies and bendings of the laws.
I do cry injustice. You have been unjust and incorrect about the Natives, all those years ago. You have been unjust and nigh-on libelous about the Pilgrims. You have been unjust and unkind toward those of us who believe that fixing an obvious problem is more important than engaging in empty talk of thankfulness. You have been unjust to immigrants, both legal and illegal, in mischaracterizing their situation and their standing.
Worst, however… you have been unjust toward the Word of God, and to the idea of thanksgiving to Him. You have turned what should be a call to gratitude and unity into a shamefully inaccurate feast of guilt. You have attempted to turn what should be the joy of gratitude into the shame of centuries past, for no productive reason. You have misapplied Scripture, and in so doing, have potentially led brothers and sisters in Christ astray.
If this was just another mis-characterization of Thanksgiving, I’d let it go. It’s a dime a dozen, such posts. But you have called God into account, and now, so do I. If what you said was true? Then let it be such. But if not, may He work on your conscience and bring you to repentance. In all things, may He turn our hearts to thanksgiving and to gratitude, not to division and guilt and long-nursed animosity.
Well, it is hard to know where to begin answering you, But, let me try to put together a few points that might summarize, so as to keep it short, some of the issues I have with your answer. I will not take them a little out of order.
1. I think you are going significantly out of your way to find some odd interpretations of what I have said. I actually know that there are multiple tribal peoples, particularly since I was in South America for several years and periodically rode mules to visit in the village. But, just because Native Americans had battles, wars, and conquest, does not excuse Europeans from their behavior. You appear to be saying that because Native Americans were sinners that this gave Europeans the right to be sinners.
2. Since undocumented immigrants (with the exception of the children recently arrived) are rather well known for working hard, I fail to see where you welfare allusion comes from. They are not legally entitled to welfare, nor do they receive it. When the go to hospitals, they have to make a cash payment arrangement, etc. I know because I work in a hospital.
3. Yes, legally their children must be allowed to go to school. First, many of their children are American citizens. Second, that does happen to be the law. Children must go to school, by law, regardless of citizenship. So, we are not allowing them to go to school, we are requiring them to go to school.
4. Ahem, with regard to my quoting the Old Testament, it is clear that the Puritans did see this as a land given to them by God so that their covenant with him could be carried out. The later semi-religious doctrine of Manifest Destiny, and the current emphasis on American exceptionalism continue a mindset that precisely fits the Old Testament concept of having a special place in God’s economy. As such, it is precisely our responsibility to care for the stranger and the alien. Finally, let me point out that it was Our Lord in the Gospels who both spoke the parable of Lazarus and Dives plus prophesied that at the judgment, helping the sick, visiting those in jail, etc., would be part of the evidence of being a true believer.
5. Oddly enough you accuse me of misrepresenting immigrants, but I am an immigrant. So, I guess I know little of what it means to arrive here without a visa, have to scrape a living, and take a long time to be able to receive my citizenship. In the case of my mother, my sister, and I, we were fortunate. We arrived at a time when mercy still existed in this country and were fortunate enough to arrive from a Communist country, which meant we were able to gain political refugee status, despite arriving with no visa.
6. Most of the rest of what you charge is as equally tendentious as your claim that I know little about Native Americans or immigrants. or Early American history, etc., so I will stop here.
1. Never claimed such. Rather, I was answering your two contentions of ‘we are all aliens and strangers in this land except for the natives’- incorrect due to the fact that the natives were not monolithic nor can any claim peaceful settlement, thus putting them on equal moral footing as the Pilgrims- and secondly setting the record straight as to the treatment of the two sides. The sin of one group does not justify that of another. However, to portray one group as morally superior, especially in this situation, where such is not the case, is inaccurate, hence my pointing out that fact.
2. Not accurate. While it is true that several laws (I believe one in 1996 spelled it out the most clearly) forbid illegal immigrants from receiving most forms of welfare, there are nevertheless exceptions. Medicare Part D was one example, as are some forms of child tax credits that shouldn’t be applicable (detailed here http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/illegal-aliens-may-lose-of-some-medicare-benefits/?page=all). This is, of course, not including benefits that are exercised on the behalf of dependent citizen children, which gets around the law by granting the welfare on behalf of the children to the adults. That sum is a fair bit higher. (http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-98-30)
3. I’ll grant the point on compulsory education for minors, but that wasn’t entirely what I meant. We take care of that from start to finish, bending the rules- especially in college- to accommodate their situations. This includes scholarships and financial aid, which- again- we would neither be morally nor legally obligated to grant. (http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/undocumented.phtml)
4. I’d turn back your objection. Because the Puritans and some Americans mis-use Scripture, does that excuse it in this case? Manifestly, (sorry, couldn’t resist,) no. The Puritans were mistaken to think that New England was New Canaan. We can argue that America can or does have a ‘special place in God’s economy,’ if for no other reason than because it has a high preponderance of Christians and a fair few do genuinely seek God’s will, especially in terms of generosity and extending blessings to others, but that’s entirely beside the point. As for the point on Christ’s teachings, you are correct. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, visiting the imprisoned, and so forth, are signs of being a true believer. Such things are not, to any unusual degree, being denied to illegals in this country. Quite the contrary, as I pointed out in my comment.
5. Mischaracterized their situation and their standing, a point which I emphasize and stand by. You stated that America tried to set ‘impossible limitations’ on illegals. In the case of legal immigrants, as you say, the matter is quite a bit different. You find me in agreement that I wish there were more asylee/refugee visas granted, particularly in wake of the nightmares in Mexico, but that’s not really what we’re talking about here. As for the impossibility… no. America grants something to the order of thirteen million more nonimmigrant admissions visas to people from Mexico than the next runner-up. Conversely, total apprehensions of illegal immigrants (the first step to any action taken,) are down to levels we haven’t seen since the 1970s. Initial admissions to ICE detention facilities are down. 88k were returned to Mexico, and 1.3k to Guatemala, both down from previous years and both in distinction to other nations, like Canada and the Philippines, both of which saw proportionate increases in deportations. (All of this according to DHS records.)
To put it bluntly, mercy is alive and well in this country. We have, and continue to show, restraint in our enforcement of immigration law, and especially as compared to some other nations, it’s quite odd to assert the contrary. We may agree or not on how much mercy should be shown, and certainly it seems like we’re in agreement that there’s room for changing the system, but implying that mercy no longer exists in this nation? No, that’s not accurate, not in the least.
6. I never claimed that you know little about any of the above. I simply corrected the narrative that you presented, giving both context and the proverbial other side of the story. If you believe that I have been inaccurate, then you’re free to point out where that would be. Truth is what matters to me, and whether someone knows or not is not nearly as important as being accurate and truthful. Being incorrect is not the same as knowing little.
As for the ‘tendentious’ parts… In what sense have I shown a bias? I laid out my objections fairly clearly, and I believe, based on this post and on others, that they are charges that are born out, not merely filling in the mental blanks. Indeed, I stand by what I say, and I mean it in all seriousness. You know better than this. You’re an intelligent man, and when you have reason, you’ve shown a keen ability to get to the truth of the matter. Re-examine these two narratives, that of the Pilgrims and that of the illegal immigrant. It isn’t, I think, that you ‘know little’ or that I’m somehow smarter or better than you. It’s just part of the quirk of human cognition- we all have our blind spots, our cultural narratives, what David Hume termed our ‘belief’ that’s just the way our minds have been habituated to think and feel, and that become ingrained and hard to root out. I have them, myself, and I’ve learned to hold my peace on such things until I can re-examine carefully. I ask, again, that you do so with this. Especially when you’ve invoked such a high authority on the matter.
See, https://www.orthocuban.com2014/11/aliens-and-strangersnew-testament/
Over at Internet Monk, they used to say about such long-winded thread hijacks:
“Start your own blog.”
It’s a cartoon.
Including casting the tribes they encounted in the Land Given Them By God as the Canaanites in their Book of Joshua LARPG.