Cabarrus Cheap Seats

At last week’s Board of Commissioners meeting, Coy Privette introduced a resolution intended to curb illegal immigration. He got the language of the resolution from one submitted to the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners by Bill James. According to the Cabarrus Neighbors article, the resolution would direct County staff to do the following:

• Participate in a program that denies local and state benefits to illegal immigrants.
• Identify the status of clients of nonprofit organizations before funding the agencies.
• Have the county attorney identify and research ways to enhance the enforcement of immigration laws in the county.
• Require all local employers to work with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s newly created program designed to prevent illegal aliens from getting jobs.

On the surface, this seems like common sense. If these immigrants are “illegal” and are, by definition, breaking the law - then it makes no sense to aid that behavior. However, a close look at each one of these points would lead one to consider the possibility that these aren’t motivated by a desire to fix gaps in a Byzantine and ineffective immigration system; but rather that this resolution was crafted to draw a few votes in the upcoming Republican Primary from the fear of many in Cabarrus County of the growing influence of Latinos in our community.

“Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me” - Matthew 25:40

I’m going to start with the second bullet in the Cabarrus Neighbors’ summary of this resolution. However, I’m going to approach this a little differently than I have in the past. Usually, I bring up omitted facts, logical fallacies, or differing political philosophies. I’m going to look at that second bullet as a church-going Christian.

When I read that second bullet I see this: “If you have a ministry that ever does anything for someone who might have been an undocumented worker - you can forget about working with the County” One of the more interesting ideas from the Bush Administration was the idea of faith-based initiatives. The idea was to have government, at all levels, increasingly work with religious organization to deliver services to their communities. Many times, churches can coordinate and deliver relief and development within neighborhoods much more effectively than even the best local government. One of the concerns brought up by the people on the “faith side” was that they could be subjected to the shackles of bloated bureaucracy or the whims of campaigning politicians. It looks like if this resolution gets passed - that is a valid concern in Cabarrus County.

Most ministries I’ve been involved with will follow the teachings of Jesus in spite of what “the world” tells them. I don’t think too many church or para-church ministries would deny help to another human being based on a change in County policy. However, it brings up a few questions about the thinking behind this decision:

• If this issue is that the County isn’t offering services to undocumented workers and their families because they are “illegal” - will Cabarrus County eliminate services to other criminals? Will it pull funding for drug rehabilitation? Will it not give money to a ministry that ministers to prisoners?
• What about programs that try to help people become citizens? What will it do about English-As-Second language programs? Will it deny funding to an organization that offers legal aid to illegal immigrants?

Of course, I don’t think that government - at any level - should be doing many of these things directly. These are functions that are best served by communities via caring individuals and non-profit organizations. What I do have a problem with is a government that refuses to work with an organization that refuses to discriminate. While Coy Privette may try to make it county policy to use skin color to determine if someone receives services, it is wrong to ask local ministries to do that same. Which brings me to my next point.

It’s not about security - it’s about race

Let’s say that you’re “in charge”. So much so that you can build an impermeable wall with state-of-the-art security along our borders making unauthorized crossing nearly impossible. However, as is the case when one is “in charge”, you have the resources to build a wall at one border - either Mexico or Canada. If you decision on popular opinion - you’ll pick Mexico. If you base your opinion on security data - you’ll pick Canada.

While the 9/11 terrorists used legal loopholes in our own immigration laws instead of coming through Canada, there were others that have been picked up at the border before and since 9/11. Canada has a diverse population and rather lax immigration policies which make it a likely conduit for future terrorists to enter the country. There would be one major problem to tightening up the border with Canada - it would be terrible for the US economy to slow trade with our largest trade partner.

Of course, then we start getting closer to the real issue. “They” don’t pay any taxes…which is untrue. “They” use up all of our services…which is also untrue. Generally, “they” are referred to as “Mexicans” - even though they aren’t all from Mexico. However, there are a growing number of people who don’t care to see them taking up an increasingly permanent role in our community. The recent story of a drunk-driving illegal immigrant driving 100 MPH the wrong way down I-85 didn’t help matters. Mixture of carnage, wanton violation of immigration laws, and the early end of a promising young life made perfect fodder for those calling for their own version of “immigration reform” which usually involves a big wall and a return ticket home for anyone who was born south of the Rio Grande. The first and third points in Coy’s proposal play on those fears.

Rare is the immigrant who thinks that the border shouldn’t have been closed right behind them. The vast majority of us came over on a boat, plane, etc. As for the others, as irony would have it, it’s hard to find a Native American that is a virulently anti-immigrant - they lost that battle a while ago. The vast majority of anti-immigrant sentiment comes from people whose ancestors arrived in this country before it really had an immigration policy. Which has its roots in racist policies.

An Issue of Leadership

Having said all of that, let me make something clear - I am NOT labeling anyone on the Board of Commissioners as a racist. I do not know any of them well enough to make a charge as serious as racism. What I will say is that the intent of this resolution is to play on the ignorance and fears of those voters who are racist, which is still deplorable.

The main job of our elected officials is to make sure that government keeps functioning smoothly and efficiently - the trash gets picked up, thieves get caught, and roads get built. However, at every level, elected officials should cause a community to meet challenges and look beyond this generation to the next. The people we elect should have the character and desire to challenge all of us to look beyond our fears and not to be consumed by them.