Jesus the migrant

One thought that has recurred in my mind this advent is the fact that the one whose birthday we celebrate, the feast which practically means so much for most of the western world, Christmas which means so much to so many in so many different ways is actually the celebration of a migrant birth!!  

That Jesus was born outside his own home, his own parent's house, that too in a stable, a lowly place considered fit only for domestic animals, is so often repeated in our sermons and reflections, but we can sum it all into one word: being a migrant, a refugee, a stranger in a lowly and lonely place.  Amazingly we celebrate this birth with such great festivities, yet choose not to be disturbed by the way we treat the stranger and the lonely, the 'other'.  

Not just the child Jesus, but practically every other Biblical character was a refugee, a migrant at some crucial point of his or her life, if not the entire life itself: Abraham was on the move, after he thought he had set his roots,  Moses had to flee from his brother, Joseph was sold into slavery and imprisoned in Egypt... why, even Adam was evicted from his first home, by none other than God himself!! 

While there are numerous generous and noble people today (as in times before) who open their hands and hearts to the migrants and refugees, it is alarming to see the modern world speckled with countless refugee camps and agonising immigration processes that dehumanise persons - most often, in the name of securing the dignity of other human beings.  

So I ask myself, how justified am I everytime I claim something as 'mine'... my land, my home, my property, my inheritance, my rights... what is the cost of making something 'mine'?  Can there be a 'mine' wherein the other is not denied 'his'?  How do I happily make the journey from 'mine' to 'ours'? 

Child and the family

On March 3, 2018, the Times ran an interesting article titled 'When good intentions lead to awful crimes'.  It was about the child migrants who were sent to New Zealand and Australia years ago.  The whole concept was to populate the British colonies with children from Britain so as to ensure the population remains white (mostly).  The whole endeavour was to ensure that the best civilization (read that as English culture) would prevail.  It was not done out of fear that the English would be wiped out or over run.  The enterprise was taken up at the height of the English mentality that the sun would never set on the mighty empire!! 

The exporting of children as colonial seed corn dates back to 1618 when 100 destitute children were sent to the fledgling colony of Virginia. By the time the last party of child migrants arrived in Australia in 1967 more than 130,000 children had been removed to Canada, New Zealand, Rhodesia and Australia. 

What actually happened 400 years ago was in a way charitable: boys, orphaned and abandoned or not from affluent families or from broken families, in Britain were taken to Australia with the idea of giving them a better future and a chance to carry on the 'English legacy' in the Down under. 

A child brought up in the bracing colonial climate would, it was believed, learn the value of hard work and escape from the corrupting influence of the slums. 

While what actually happened to these thousands of children remains far from the ideal or normal, the intention of those who approved and endorsed this enterprise was noble - as per the times. Even when the programme ended it was not because of moral issues but because the empire itself was waning.

The author does not condemn the whole programme but picks up the lesson to be learnt: need for rigorous follow up of charities.  Rightly so.  Passing moral judgement on the past by the standards of the present is meaningless.

Today, the idea that children could be removed from their families, lied to and dumped in the hands of strangers seems utterly iniquitous.The science of child psychology (which only emerged in the 1920s) has taught us that a child brought up in a family, even a poor and dysfunctional one, is almost always happier than one with no family at all. 

Fearing imagination

No sooner did I complete reading the first reading of the Mass then it did strike me that the situation therein was not very different from the present situation of the West.  The reading from the book of Exodus, speaks of the fear among the Egyptians of the growing number of Israelites.  

The situation today of the West too is similar.  In the context of the immigrants and migrants, there is a sense of 'fear' among the residents that they would be overrun by these 'outsiders' sooner or later.  Hence the animosity, anger, protests, ill-treatment... The strange but true fact of human nature - then and now - is that when I fear, I start oppressing the other.  Rather than tackle the fear within me, I begin to make others frightened of me!  

The gospel offered very mixed and strange response to this dilemma: those of the household shall become enemies;  whoever loves life will lose it...; whoever receives you, receives me...; whoever gives a cup of cold water to these little ones....  Interestingly it does not mention of fear.  

I guess there is a logic in the statement that fear clouds clear thinking. 

Economic immigrants?

The other day one of the local newspapers ran an article stating that 7 out of 10 immigrants who entered Europe in the last one year were economic immigrants.  That is to say that they dared the seas and death itself purely for economic reasons.  That situation back home were not really life-threatening or serious but it was dreams of prosperity that drove people to the European shores.

Well, I would not deny the fact that it could be money that prompted the Africans, Libyans and Syrians to flee their own homeland.  Another reason to support this argument is the gender ratio of those found crossing the Mediterranean sea... it is mostly men folk.  Proportionately there are very few women and children among those rescued or seeking residence in a foreign land.

So I was thinking to myself: Would I leave my homeland for economic gains?  Would I have the heart to leave behind my family, relatives and friends to go to a foreign land where I know that I'd be looked down upon?  Would I be so daring as to even face death by drowning, or shot by the middle-men, be sold in slavery in some other part of the world that I'm trying to escape, or be put in prison even if I make it across safely... such high risk for money?

I believe there is more to economics than purely earning money.  Life is too complicated to be restricted to one factor or aspect of living.   While economic well being may be one of the reasons, may be a strong reason, but that alone cannot drive a person from all that he or she holds dear in life - even life itself.  Situations at home may not be life-threatening, but they certainly are not life-enhancing either!  

The stranger

The first reading of the day, wherein a lady not only offers hospitality to the prophet Elisha but eventually makes room for him in her house, stands in stark contrast to the situation in the West today.  In the light of the immigration crisis there is a sizeable population in the 'developed countries' who do not want 'foreigners' in the land, except when they bring in revenue.  If they arrive as dependents, then they are not welcome!

Take for instance, Australia.  It takes in approximately 13,000 immigrants every year.  Given the size of the country and its terrain, even if that number were tripled it would still be able to accommodate them all. But it would not!  Well even I am not for immigration.  But for different reasons.  Why should a person be forced to move out of his own place, his home, his land?  Only wanderers love roaming around.  For most, we human beings like to get back home at the end of the day... even if that day is stretched to months or years.  So rather than 'rehabilitate', help make their homes and countries a safe place where they can continue to live.  They may not have the luxury and the comfort of another nation, but what greater place on earth than 'home'.

While hosting nations and citizens have genuine concerns about those coming into their country.  Some of them are worth discussing and do cause inconvenience to all involved.  However, most of the reasons cited by those against 'non-natives' are based on undue fear and heightened selfishness of a few.  The gospel of the day is then a challenge to each one of us to move out of ourselves, to risk, to be generous and see the world as more and beyond oneself.

Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and whoever receives a righteous man because he is righteous will receive a righteous man's reward. And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple--amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward. 

Immigration and YaR

The current discussion mode and mood about immigration has great similarities with our Salesian work with street children.

From my little experience and association with the work for and with the young at risk, I don't think I'll be wrong to say that initially the work was not at all recognised as a Salesian work.  Slowly it gained momentum and then it picked up fast.  More Salesians joined in seeing the need at hand.  It reached a sort of climax where it was hailed as truly ennobling.  It is also at this time that what we did for the children was offer them shelter and education.  The focus was on the institutional set up (though of course, when it began it was anything but institutional!).  The children were catered to.  There were attempts made to rehabilitate the children back with their own families but I'm not sure if that was the primary task. Then came the age of experimentation with trying to 'create' family like atmosphere within the institution.  So there were couples entrusted with a certain number of children but all living in the campus.  That really did not work.  Then came the era of introspection which brought the realization that institutional help is to be the last resort.  The first task is to make sure the child has a safe childhood in its own family.  We are yet to truly understand and get into this mode because we are now still stuck with our institutions!

The same 'evolutionary' process is what I see in the whole debate about immigration.  Unfortunately it is still in one of the first levels of growth: 'what to do with the immigrants?'  Rather than address the root of immigration and thereby address it, the discussion is mostly about offering (or not offering) the immigrants the right to entry, stay and work.  

Learning from the past, remembering ourselves

That what we hate most in others is often what is most distasteful in us, is a fact of psychology.

This fact can offer some valuable lessons for us while engaging ourselves in the whole debate of immigration and migrants.  Very often those who strongly denounce and protest migrants entering one's own space, are themselves migrants. Those who actually are of the place, from time immemorial have a more considerate and welcoming attitude.  Read the following insightful post titled 'Taking a chance on each other' by Maria K. on her blog Simple Moodlings.

The Americans who today claim the land as their own were once upon a time themselves migrants from other parts of the world in search of a living. The actual natives, the Red Indians, hardly get to say anything.  The paradox is that when denouncing migrants and chasing out the immigrants, people conveniently forget that they too were once immigrants.  The same is true of/in Australia and Europe.

What most people forget is that given a choice, most people would like to get back to their own country, their own place.  Like someone recently stated, 'The journey of every immigrant is always the same: back home'.  No one wants to leave the warmth of his own home unless it becomes too unbearable, inhospitable.  Only when survival itself is threatened does a person uproot himself or herself.  Imagine showing such a person, the affluence of his neighbour... Naturally anyone would want to share in that 'luxury', but what he or she is actually craving for is dignified living.

History repeats itself, but our learning from history rarely does - even if it does, it is too slow! 

Politics and immigration

Immigration is a very hot and debated topic in the West these days.  One of our subsequent lectures in the Human Rights course is dedicated to this topic too.

Article 13 of the UDHR states that everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of each state; everyone has the right to leave any country, including ones own, and to return to his country.

Article 14: Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

While politicians and bureaucrats discuss this issue of immigration, several possible ways of dealing with the present crisis are being toyed with. While different European nations have adopted different standards and measures, with differing degrees, the issue is never fully resolved.  Never will be!

Perhaps a real political will would address the very reasons which cause immigration and prevent people from being forced to leave their homeland, rather than propose measures of assisting immigrants.  The will is to prevent one from becoming an immigrant, rather than helping the immigrant.  The former is well within the purview of politics, the latter in the ethical arena.  Confusing the two would never yield any significant solution.