By Jennifer Ju
Facing Ourselves
Jennifer Ju
In The Odyssey, the Greek poet Homer presents the epic 20-year journey of the hero Odysseus’s quest to go home. It is a story of the dangers one faces, the obstacles one surmounts and the trials one endures to find one’s home. Although written in 700 BCE, these themes appear to be present in modern times as well, in the stories of the millions of migrants and refugees seeking to find a home which provides them with comfort, security and possibility.
One may argue that these migrants and refugees are fleeing home, not returning, but often their country of origin has ceased to provide the qualities that make a true home. It is their search for home which is often met with much controversy and hostility.
What is a home, if not a sacred sanctuary, a place of safety and refuge? The definition of sanctuary sometimes appears to be a topic of debate. Take, for example, the label of sanctuary city or jurisdiction, which does not have any single or unified definition. Despite the myriad impressions of what constitutes a sanctuary city or jurisdiction, the only common hallmark is some limitation on enforcing immigration law. There is no guarantee of employment, housing or citizenship that is universally offered by sanctuary cities or jurisdictions.
So why exactly did Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis order two chartered planes to transport approximately 50 migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard last month? Although the funding for this effort came from $12 million allocated in the Florida state budget to transport “unauthorized aliens” from Florida, some of that money was used to transport migrants from Texas after finding that there were fewer Florida migrants than expected. It’s unclear to what degree Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was involved in the transporting of these migrants.
Other questions arise from this recent incident. Has there been precedent for this? Even though DeSantis’s actions were highly publicized and took many by surprise, the transporting of migrants and refugees is not novel or unique. Abbott has recently bussed migrants to Vice President Kamala Harris’s home in Washington, DC. This year Texas bussed several thousand migrants to various locations, including DC, New York and Chicago, with the state committing billions of dollars to this and other immigration initiatives under Abbott’s “Operation Lone Star.” Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey also started a program transporting migrants from Arizona to Washington, DC.
Some wonder why states would spend millions of dollars to transport migrants to other states. The rationale given for these initiatives include limited resources of overburdened states which are ill-equipped to deal with the massive number of migrants crossing their borders. Others declare that it is only fair for the northern, more liberal states, to do their share to address the migrant problem and to experience first-hand the issues besieging the border states.
But these migrants aren’t here illegally. In many cases, they are offered temporary protection from deportation when they are granted humanitarian parole upon release from detention facilities, with required regular reporting to immigration authorities as well as complying with orders for court appearances. It appears that the majority, if not all, of the migrants who DeSantis shipped to Martha’s Vineyard had already been granted humanitarian parole and had acquired temporary legal status prior to the transport.
Is it hypocritical for the current administration to criticize states’ efforts to deal with the migrant problem, when the federal government itself has transported migrants for years? Many argue that the efforts by governors in Arizona, Florida and Texas are justified, as their states have the bulk of the burden of the migrant problem, whereas other regions of the country have failed to do their part in accommodating these migrants. It is also true that the federal government, including the present and earlier administrations, has transported migrants as well.
However, the federal government usually does this en route to deportation from the US, or moves unaccompanied children to family, other sponsors or child-only detention facilities. In these cases, the efforts are coordinated and conducted with advance communication. That is in stark contrast to the Martha’s Vineyard situation, in which no prior notice was provided, leaving local officials scrambling to obtain and offer housing and other services.
Did these migrants voluntarily agree to fly to Martha’s Vineyard? After all, it is not illegal to transport migrants if the migrants voluntarily agree to it. Although representatives for Texas and Arizona say that the migrants they transport sign consent waivers, representatives for DeSantis have not confirmed if the migrants who signed their consent waivers were actually informed that the transportation is voluntary. In addition, even though some of the migrants were reportedly offered incentives such as $10 McDonald’s gift certificates or lodging in a hotel prior to boarding the flight, the migrants report that they were transported under false pretenses, having been told they were heading to Boston or Washington DC.
They were given folders with information on available resources that ranged from inaccurate to false, as well as guarantees of instant access to housing, education and other assistance upon arrival. These promises were not immediately or readily met, in part due to the lack of communication and coordination between the states. Although the migrants were promised readily available employment, there is a separate application process for migrants who want to work here which can take several months to process.
According to the Center of Immigration Studies, the six small towns which comprise the island of Martha’s Vineyard are not registered in the list of sanctuary states and cities, which was updated on Oct. 4.
Amidst the fierce debate over DeSantis’s transport, with some heralding it as fair and logical and others decrying it as an inhumane and political antic, many wonder, doesn’t the end justify the means? Some contend that the transported migrants were given better opportunities, rather than languishing in detention centers or being expelled from the country. It is true that many migrants are fleeing starvation, crime and economic crisis. Recently, growing numbers of migrants from Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua have been escaping grim circumstances, which some have compared to the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.
The complexity of these issues is addressed in Dr. Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail. He addresses the “us versus them” mentality that has become more pervasive between the states, urging us to truly be a united states. He writes, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly…Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”
One should ponder if they believe that this applies to the migrant “outsider” who has been granted legal status via humanitarian parole.
Although migrant issues are problematic and complicated, King cautions us about the dangers of the “superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes.” He also invites us to question and investigate complex subjects, “so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal.”
As we continue to dispute how best to address the extensive issues brought forth by the overwhelming number of migrants crossing the US borders, King asks us to put the situation in perspective, saying, “There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair.” King also invites us to consider what laws are just and unjust with his statement, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law…Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”
How much honesty, dignity and respect was rooted in the motivation to transport the migrants to Martha’s Vineyard? King challenges us to grapple with the issues of what are just and unjust laws, saying “Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application…We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal’…I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’”
We must open our eyes and go beyond blanket, black and white statements that pit “us” against “other.” We must work together to find solutions that are fair and equitable. What is fair for the states which are inundated with unwanted migrants? Are we providing them with the support they need? What is compassionate treatment for the individuals risking their lives and fleeing horrific circumstances marked by war, starvation, crime and poverty? Do we view them as people or merely problems to be dealt with? Do we see their humanity, or do we see them as baggage which can be dumped from one area to another, reminiscent of the childhood game of hot potato?
We can choose to drop our righteous and justified defenses, consider the rules of conduct found within the religions and wisdom traditions, including the common themes of love and service, and evaluate how our modern laws align with these revered commands.
Jennifer Ju, MD is a physician who is a graduate of the Brown University family medicine residency program. She is also an actor and writer who has performed in various theatres across the state and whose plays have been produced locally. Ju has also presented numerous online and in-person workshops on mindfulness, health and wellness for parents and children, as well as for pre-K-12 educators in New Haven and Fairfield counties.