A NIGHT AT THE FORUM
Last night I was a guest at a program sponsored by The Connecticut Forum. The subject was immigration. The panel included retired general John Kelly, former attorney general Loretta Lynch, and journalist and undocumented US resident Jose Vargas. Evan Osnos moderated the event.
When the invitation arrived, and I looked at the panel, I was skeptical. First, because of my views on immigration based on years of living outside the United States, and second, I tend to the more conservative side of almost every issue currently in vogue in American political discourse. Being fallible, I have to remind myself of a quote by Marcus Aurelius continually.
“If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one ever was truly harmed. Harmed is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance.”
OK, maybe “happily change” is a bit enthusiastic, but I would at least make the effort.
A few observations, some of which altered my thinking and others solidified it. The organizers of the Forum mastered the virtual venue, a difficult thing to do. So many virtual events stay with a tried and true format that works for in-person meetings. The organizers created a platform for calm discussion. Attorney General Lynch, despite my biases, I was surprised by her fair and balanced presentation of her positions and her answers, at times criticizing the Obama Administration’s role in American immigration evolution. Retired General Kelly, on the other hand, offered statements that on the surface seemed sound and reasonable but conflicted with his actions and behaviors. For example, he was entirely correct to say that the military should remain apolitical, in and out of uniform. Why then did he, first, join the administration at a cabinet level position and then move closer to the center of power as White House Chief of Staff? Was it altruistic, or is the motive power, ego, money, or political ambition. It could easily be all of the above, but it was definitively contradictory. Mr. Vargas was an entity unto himself. Why the Forum would highlight an undocumented resident is a question worth further review and close examination.
Perhaps my most significant realization of the truth came under the heading of “words matter.” To many in my generation and political bent, immigration has implied legality to the word. It became apparent in the 90-minute Forum that the definition of immigration has evolved to now include anyone who can cross our border regardless of legal status or legitimacy. It also now includes how we treat people (in reality or perception) once they arrive. Legality is irrelevant.
Additionally, responsibility for crossing our border has shifted from the individual (including parental) to the United States Government and its taxpayers. We have permanently blurred definitions as we attempt to discuss immigration, legal immigration, illegal resident, migration, and refugees. Then, we overlay complex policy issues such as climate change, making arriving at workable solutions much more difficult. Is it any wonder that “immigration reform” as a practical policy gets nowhere?
Three things about the Forum were a disappointment. First was the expectation of a serious discussion on solutions. There were several attempts to introduce the impact of drugs and the controlling cartels and the violence created by them and perpetuated by corrupt regimes. However, those did not seem to generate much interest by other panel members, the moderator, or those participating in the chat function. The emotional focus was on people in cages and separating children from parents. While critical topics ethically and morally, these are not the central elements of immigration reform. There was no comprehensive discussion on policy solutions to think about or consider. The second was the moderator’s questions regarding defunding police and asking the panel which candidate they would vote for on November 3rd. Both topics diverted the focus from immigration to a free political ad. Third was the video by Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy. Calling the President a habitual and serial liar reduced a vital topic to name-calling and contributed to our already unnecessary national division. But that’s another story.