History Will Not Look Kindly Upon Us : The Refugee Children

The reaction of anti-immigration "activists" along the United States/Mexico border during the past few weeks has been, to put it bluntly, disgusting and shameful.  Of course, I am completely in favor of people within our country being able to voice their opinions publicly through protest.  However, it appears to me that these so-called protesters are attempting to do little but inspire terror in the women and children who have been flooding across the borders from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.  If they were truly protesting to make their opinions known in the interest of changing our policies, would they not be protesting in Washington DC or in the capitals of their respective states (California, Texas, etc.)?  Because those are the locations where individuals with the power to pass legislation that would impact this situation (one way or another) reside.  Would it not then make sense to take your message there?  Except inspiring change in a civil manner, through our legislative process, does not appear to be their true intent.  No, their goal, as demonstrated by the words they've spoken, the signs they carry, their clear hostility, and the location of their protestations, is to harass and intimidate the immigrants themselves...to "put them in their place," and let them know that they are unwanted.

Yes...clearly a thoughtful movement for change. 

The embarrassing actions of the protesters themselves is, of course, only part of a much larger problem surrounding this issue.  It is clear to anyone who has conducted even a rudimentary inquiry into the crisis at the border that many of the people who are currently entering the country, including a large number of unaccompanied minors, are doing so because they are in danger of being killed, persecuted, or forcibly recruited into violent drug gangs if they remain in their home countries.  This is a tragic situation.  Even those who are opposed to the immigrants being allowed to remain within the United States (well, those who attempt to appear civilized, not the protesters themselves) profess sympathy for what they have gone through and argue that "something" must be done.

Quite frankly, in this particular instance, sympathy is not sufficient.  Partially because of the fact that, as was so succinctly explained in this recent article on the Huffington Post  policies enacted within the United States are largely responsible for the current situation in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.  Our attempts to control the internal politics of these countries, going back to the Cold War, coupled with the failed policies of the "war on drugs" that have also destroyed any semblance of "justice" within our own legal system, has completely destabilized much of Latin America.  Perhaps even more shockingly (for most Americans who have no clue about what happens beyond our borders) these very gangs are being run by individuals who honed their skills within gangs in US cities!  Given our strong complicity in creating the conditions that these suffering women and children are fleeing from, it seems only fair to argue that we are (at least partially) responsible for ensuring that they are protected in some manner.

Furthermore, there is no justification for the United States - the wealthiest country in the world - claiming that we cannot afford to offer asylum to refugees who have turned up on our doorstep.  Especially given that we have a history of putting pressure on other nations to not only welcome refugees into their countries, but to provide those refugees with assistance in the forms of food, shelter, and medical treatment.  How can we petition countries like Pakistan, Turkey, and Jordan to support refugees when we are seemingly unwilling to do so ourselves?

This is, of course, sadly, not the only time the United States has found itself in this type of situation.  We (should) all remember the failure of the United States during the late 1930s and 1940s to provide refuge to Jewish men, women, and children fleeing repression, persecution, and eventually execution, in both Nazi Germany and the occupied territories of Europe.  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's silence in reaction to the petition of the passengers on the St. Louis for asylum has long been viewed as a stain on the reputation of one of the great leaders of the war years.  Much like today, the US pressured neighboring and allied countries, particularly Cuba, to welcome Jewish refugees in large numbers, while refusing to do so themselves, due to "economic hardship" and a lack of jobs and housing.  Hmmm....sounds familiar doesn't it? Of course, Cuba saw no reason to accept refugees when so wealthy and massive a country as the United States would not.  Similarly, today, it seems unlikely that other nations will look at our actions and think anything other than "well, if the US, such a wealthy and powerful country, refuses to protect people fleeing oppression, why should we"?

Unfortunately, the consequences to the real people in these situations is all too predictable. 

History will certainly judge us by our actions at this moment in time.  Will we rise to the challenge, and prove to the world that we do indeed believe in the values we claim to hold, and that we demand the rest of the world live up to?  Or will we refuse to protect those whose lives are at risk, largely because of actions taken by people within this country over the past fifty years?  How do we want to be viewed by the world?  By future generations?  As the kind of people who will take action in support of those in need?  Or as xenophobic, racist, selfish, ignorant people, too concerned with maintaining our own power to feel any sense of empathy for those who are merely searching for the kind of life we all currently enjoy?  Because I assure you, if we do not act quickly and decisively to help these refugees, history will not look kindly upon us.

Which side of history do you want to be on?