by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky
The acclaimed American author F. Scott Fitzgerald once said that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” It should also be true that the mature mind is able to recognize that there can be two conflicting values at the same time that, nonetheless, still require resolution born of compromise. Both suggestions, apparently, will never apply to politicians.
There are two competing values at play in this week’s volcanic eruption of controversy. One value is that it is wrong for strangers to arbitrarily separate children from parents. There are tears, there is trauma, and shame on the parents who put children in that position unless compelled by unavoidable circumstances. The second value is that countries are defined by borders and nations by laws, and countries that cannot control their borders or otherwise regulate immigration see their sovereignty undermined and their way of life compromised. That is the ongoing story of Europe’s collapse.
Is it no longer possible in America to recognize that both are legitimate values? We are taught that “no alien shall draw near to bring the incense who is not the offspring of Aharon, that there never again be like Korach and his cohorts…” (Bamidbar 17:5). How can we guarantee that there will never again be a controversy like the one precipitated by Korach? The commentators explain that the verse means that there will never again be a controversy like that of Korach and Moshe, where one side (Korach) is 100% wrong and the other side (Moshe) is 100% right. Life’s arguments are usually nuanced. Modern politicians don’t do nuance. They seek votes, power and money.
Naturally, each of the values presented above is not absolute. Democracies are desirable destinations for the impoverished and the refugee, and the United States has always been a magnet for such individuals, even if immigration policy has changed over the last 140 years and not always been applied consistently or fairly. But only anarchists feel that nations should have no borders, no laws, no enforcement, and no control, and it can’t be emphasized enough that the policy of separating children from parents is not only not new but it also only applies to those who attempt to cross the border illegally. Why this is routinely ignored is baffling only to those who don’t recognize the incendiary hyperbole that is the stock in trade of the political left. Families that attempt to cross the borderlegally – at the authorized border crossings – are never separated. They are then deported, admitted, or, if a claim of asylum is not readily verifiable, detained together while their cases are adjudicated.
The anarchists do not wish to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, and the disparate treatment of the two, and so their two tactics are appeals to raw emotion and a resort to hurling vulgarities at those with whom they disagree. Neither speaks well of them or their cause. Emotion is usually a poor way to make policy and inevitably leads to bad policy and exacerbates the problem. And cursing one’s opponents, obstructing their lives, or interfering with their meals is an admission that they are either bereft of ideas and the ability to persuade or presume that there is absolutely no justice, merit or logic on the other side. For that, see Korach, above. When mobs are allowed to rule, decent people suffer and civil society deteriorates.
A number of Jewish organizations abetted the anarchists in their public statements, and did not distinguish themselves in issuing anguished cries of protest, however heartfelt, without even a single policy prescription. That too is mere venting but contributes little to the public discourse. Simply saying what cannot be done to avoid one problem, and taking no position on what should be done to avoid a concomitant problem, is not especially wise or helpful. But it plays well in the liberal media who record these things.
Fair people should be able to admit that the forced separation of children from parents is unpleasant and the crying heartrending. This, too, exists on a scale of gradation ranging from the goodbyes on “going off to camp day” (that, too, is traumatic, and I’ve seen it; sometimes the children are bawling, and sometimes the parents are bawling) to the Holocaust (absolute evil). Since this is not the Holocaust – no child is being marched to gas chambers for immediate execution – references to the Holocaust are as appalling and repugnant as they are inaccurate, and another indication of the dearth of reasoning on the part of those who make them. They are used as conversation stoppers – so far removed they are from reality.
Indeed, there is a situation in America where parents and children are routinely and forcibly separated. Last year alone, roughly 4500 young children were forcibly separated from their single mothers who were arrested for committing a crime. If there is no proximate relative, the children are placed in foster care, which is, too often, a disaster. It is horrible, traumatic, and life-altering, but no one says that single mothers should therefore have immunity from prosecution for any crimes they commit in order to spare the children this grievous harm. Actually, I should not say that “no one” says that; I’m sure there are some anarchists who would say that.
The separation at the border is more akin to the single-mother arrest scenario than, certainly, to the summer camp severance, even though the child at the border is liable to be reunited with his/her parents within hours, days or weeks. The arrested mother, sadly, can wind up spending years in prison, disconnected from her children. Reasonable people can differ as to whether the current policy is meant primarily for the purpose of deterrence or only partly, but not on this: illegal immigrant parents should be on notice that capture and separation is a distinct possibility. So why not use a border crossing?
Obviously, as the talking heads and politicians put it, the “optics” of separation are not good. But policies should not be adopted or rejected because of “optics” or in response to visceral appeals to passions. What is being done is unkind – but it is also unkind to allow alien gang members, drug dealers, human smugglers and murderers to infiltrate the country to terrorize their former countrymen who are here legally as well as other American citizens. It should be possible for reasonable people to utilize both their hearts and their minds in formulating policy. But politicians are a different breed and everything –everything – is perceived through one prism: votes.
For all the wailing of the leftist politicians about the “children,” the news today is that two proposed Republican bills in Congress would require that family units (even those crossing illegally) be kept intact and that the President’s border wall be fully funded. This should be a win-win for both sides – children’s advocates should be ecstatic that the young will no longer be wrenched from their parents and that the trigger for those painful separations – the illegal entries – will be drastically reduced or eliminated by a border wall. And yet the current reports are that not one Democrat supports either bill, meaning that they would rather children suffer this pain than not suffer this pain, as long as there is no border wall. It is a cynical ploy for votes – and no mystery why the approval rating for Congress is below 20%. I’m surprised it’s that high.
In this week’s Torah reading, the Jewish people’s journey to the land of Israel was detoured because of the refusal of Edom to allow the tribes of Israel to traverse Edomite territory on their way to the land of Israel. Note that all we wanted was to cross through their land, not remain there permanently, and even offered to pay substantially per capitafor that right and for the water they would consume. This refusal had serious consequences, as the people had to retreat southward (away from Israel) and circumvent Edomite territory. This led to despair, frustration, complaints about the lack of water of food, and general discontent among the people.
It was uncharitable, to be sure, but Edom was not obligated to let us pass through, we respected their sovereignty, and moved on to another route. A nation without borders and without laws cannot long endure. Executive orders are temporary and constitutionally dubious actions. The most liberal American has to reckon with the fact that, by some estimates, more than five billion people on the planet live in poverty, distress or repression, and would love to come to the United States of America and benefit from its freedoms and kindnesses. Obviously, they all can’t, nor can their children.
If there remains a shred of decency in the political class, they will join together and craft a solution that respects both values, builds a border wall, controls legal immigration, protects those fleeing from violence (even aids those troubled countries to quell the violence that makes their citizens want to flee), keeps families together, upholds the rule of law, suppresses the anarchists, restores civil discourse among groups with competing values, and strengthens America and the American values of law, order, liberty and human dignity.
Is that too much to ask?
Maybe, but do it anyway, for the children.