Linda Chavez and Her Critics

Former Labor Secretary nominee and staunch conservative Linda Chavez has been taking a lot of flack the past couple of weeks. Why? She has dared to challenge the reigning "conservative" position on immigration. She even went so far as to accuse some of her friends as pandering to racist and nativist sentiments in our society. After being soundly criticized for those remarks, she went on to apologize and respond at length on National Review Online.

What interests me more than Chavez' well thought-out (although sometimes poorly articulated) position is the vitriol of her critics. She has been told to go back to Mexico (she is a 5th generation American) among other niceties. Mark Krikorian, director of the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies, tells her on NRO today to "grow up" for being upset. Apparently, he wishes to add patronizing chauvanism to his charming resume. John Derbyshire in the same piece makes no apology for consistently referring to Hispanics as "Aztecs," defending the practice by suggesting that those with multicultural sentiments would heartily approve, and if not, well, tough you-know-whats. Finally, Heather MacDonald reaffirms her position, contra Chavez, that second generation Hispanics (presumably only those born to illegal immigrants) are becoming a social nuisance and that alone should disqualify their parents from ever attaining legal status. Thomas Sowell and others have made similar arguments, never mind the fact that such pathologies as single-parent families, gang violence, and illegitimacy are hardly unique to poor Hispanics. Illegal immigrants have the added misfortune of being cut off from many avenues of advancement, so yes, the fact that Hispanics fare better than some other minority groups is quite significant. The "sins of the children" is a weak and desperate argument to limit or ban Hispanic immigration (or any people group considered undesirable) and in so doing flies in the face of conservative attempts to create a colorblind society. Race-based policies are race-based policies (quotas, et al), regardless of why they might be implemented. That, of course, is the heart of Linda Chavez' argument.

What is so clearly missing from the anti-immigration crowd (and lets be clear that Tancredo, CIS, FAIR, National Review Online, Lou Dobbs, conservative talk-radio hosts, Pat Buchanan, et al are all anti-immigration, not just anti-"amnesty") is any concern for the human dignity of those involved. What do these folks really care about the unsolved murders in poor areas of Los Angeles anyway other than to exploit them in a desperate attempt to seal the borders and turn our nation into an underpopulated and over-resourced country club for the affluent? (A rhetorical question, not an accusation.)

Are evangelical Christians really willing to be identified with all this? What biblical principles am I missing that I don't see the justice in shunning all those who are statistically likely to cause trouble or who might refuse to give up their native language? Why aren't there more Christians speaking out on this nonsense, instead choosing to stick to a wimpy and inconsistent "enforcement first" position? Why is it that more Christians in this country have not answered the call to mission and by their suffering sacrifice become the solution to the social ills they fear and detest (multiculturalism, crime, depressed wages, etc)?

I have lost much respect for many conservative pundits over this issue alone. Patriotic platitudes alone are not motivation enough for a person to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with his God. We must choose justice for all even if it means discomfort for some.