Immigration Reform

St. Francis of Assisi: Mediator or Political Activist? Part 7

In this post I continue to analyze the potential adverse consequences that accrue to political activism, consequences that may cause us to depart, inadvertently, from the charism of Francis. A FAN position paper—“Immigration Principles and Policy Priorities, Spring 2010”—provides an example we can analyze.

False Attribution Error

Previously, I noted that the opinion expressed in the paper, “…our concerns are heightened by a public climate that equates all undocumented persons with violent drug gangs,” was insulting. The opinion inaccurately attributes a state of mind to opponents; the author stumbles into the error of false attribution. Attributing this view to opponents implies they are unable to think clearly; it implies they are unable to discern differences. Such an insult, though perhaps subtle, diminishes civil discourse.

Likewise, concerns that prompted recent Arizona legislation are misrepresented. FAN writes: “We agree that violent criminals need to be stopped, but we cannot equate them to all undocumented persons who broke an unworkable law to care for their families.”

Those who support the legislation do not equate all undocumented persons with violent criminals; in fact, the law makes it clear that undocumented persons cannot be arbitrarily stopped and detained without reasonable suspicion that other laws have been violated. It appears the rhetoric misrepresents the opposition in an effort to gain sympathy and support. This approach compromises the truth and makes civil dialogue more difficult.

In the role of a conflict specialist we would be sensitive to false attributions, and we would be careful to avoid insulting the other party from the outset. We would keep in mind that insults do not hasten the peace that is our mission. A conflict specialist eschews hyperbole and seeks the language of conciliation that communicates respect and willingness to collaborate.

In the same manner, omitting positive facts gives offense that fosters resentment. While the position paper relays the Gospel message “…when I was a stranger you welcomed me” as an admonition, it fails to praise and applaud U.S. citizens for creating the most welcoming nation on the planet.

The author fails to recognize that Americans have already welcomed millions of immigrants, including undocumented migrants. The catechism [1915] provides guidance: “One must pay tribute to those nations whose systems permit the largest possible number of the citizens to take part in public life in a climate of genuine freedom.” The FAN paper lacked such a tribute.

FAN risks insulting Americans when they imply America’s response to migrants has been anything but welcoming, especially when compared to other nations, like Mexico. In the role of an activist we tend to find fault with the opposition and overlook the positive.

In contrast, as a mediator we coach those seeking immigration reform to first acknowledge the good American citizens have done and to note, with gratitude, that Americans are a warm and generous people. When we omit this step we appear to vilify Americans, which creates needless division.

False attribution errors appear throughout the paper: the author asserts ICE focuses on easy targets, women and children, instead of criminals. The writer asserts we treat people violently: “Enforcement is cruel and oppressive.” Such demonization and hyperbole does not open doors to dialogue.

The typical American will consider such assertions one-sided. They will wonder why they are being attacked and represented as lacking in love. They will point to the horrific violence south of the border and ask, “Why am I the target of criticism when there is so much violence and corruption in Mexico.” FAN’s assertions are then dismissed as partisan rhetoric, which aborts needed dialogue.

In contrast, a conflict specialist would recommend FAN not blame the party whose favor they seek (the American citizen) while at the same time dismissing (or ignoring) problems of greater magnitude in Mexico. A mediator knows Party A will refuse to come “to the table” if Party B blames them for minor transgressions while ignoring larger problems. Thus, the political rhetoric of the activist can be harmful; it can create barriers that must be overcome later.

Franciscan Legacy

In their paper, FAN seeks support for immigration reform by referencing Franciscan legacy: “St. Francis stood against systems and laws that kept people separate and unable to experience community.” The opposition might respond, “Yes, precisely. That is what we are saying. Uncontrolled immigration is a system that destroys the American community.”

They might continue, “St. Francis is correct. The system and laws of Mexico have resulted in horrible conditions that destroy community and cause migrants to be separated from their families, from their community, and from their nation. So let us protest a corrupt system that causes pain and suffering. Let us reform the Mexican government that for so long has been so corrupt.” St. Francis might lead us to stand against corrupt government that is the root cause of the problem.

Proper Framing

A mediator, unlike an activist, combines the big picture and the legacy of St. Francis to find common ground that unites. He or she avoids framing that cannot lead to solutions and instead frames the problem in a way that encourages dialogue.

FAN has chosen the frame “…replacing our broken immigration system.” Is this an accurate and useful frame? Will it promote conflict resolution? Most likely, it will not.

No doubt America faces an immigration situation that needs attention: people are suffering. But many will contend it is not the American immigration system that is broken—but rather the Mexican government. Others might arrive at yet a different frame.

Unlike a political activist, a conflict specialist pays close attention to the framing and works to find a frame acceptable to all parties. Emphasis is placed on defining the problem in a way that unites rather than divides.

Most of us would agree that we must look at the entire problem in our search for a useful frame. “What is the big picture?” we ask. Our success in seeing the big picture determines whether or not we find lasting and effective solutions.

Ironically, with respect to immigration reform, our attempt to frame the problem might force us to consider if the Catholic Church is partially responsible for the problem. Perhaps ineffective government resulted from the legacy of liberation theology and its Marxist solutions. The resulting suppression of personal liberty may have contributed to the current problem. If this is accurate, immigration activists may decide to divorce themselves from individuals and organizations promoting socialist, Marxist, or Communist solutions.

In addition, mediated give-and-take exchanges may expose faulty logic. For example, the FAN position paper states, “Immigration is recognized as a right in Catholic Social Teaching.” While the statement may be true, we ask if it is relevant. A statement can be true but irrelevant to problem solving.

Checking our logic, we might ask if immigration is the same as illegal entry. Do people have a right to illegal entry into the country? How does one define such rights? And we might notice Americans have been pro-immigration, thus there is little or no debate regarding the value of immigration; Americans see immigration as a positive. So this is not the issue.

Thus, our inspection reveals an incorrect framing, leading us to suggest an alternative framing: “The problem concerns economic refugees fleeing the effects of a broken and corrupt Mexican government.” The focus now changes. We are able to craft a new set of solutions that more accurately addresses the problem.

This approach does not focus on altering rhetoric but rather acknowledges that lasting solutions cannot be found if we do not correctly define the problem. If we state the problem inaccurately, any solution that follows will be flawed. Mediators understand the discovery of a proper frame requires input from all parties; rarely do activists, who focus on one issue, arrive at a useful frame.

Accurate Analysis is Needed

Franciscans assuming the role of conflict specialists would start by establishing points of agreement. For example, most people agree the current situation is unworkable and unsustainable; they agree reform is needed; they agree migrant workers are being exploited; they agree migrants are perceived as a burden to communities and states.

Working with these points of agreement, Franciscan conflict specialists may fine tune and nuance the description, moving toward an increasingly accurate statement. Finally, they might reach a consensus description that has the power to foster a mutual commitment to finding a solution.

The current FAN call for action, in contrast, inadvertently insults many Americans. FAN states, “Our elected leaders cannot let this immoral system remain.” This statement implies that Americans, who have welcomed literally millions of economic refugees from Mexico and Central America, are immoral. The FAN author might argue the words were not intended to insult, yet his passion for the cause may have led him to be insensitive. If we are not careful, our assumptions and biases can predispose us to conflict we do not consciously intend.

Likewise, the activist may overlook actions and words needed to calm the waters. For example, it may never occur to the passionate activist to apologize for the failure of the Catholic Church to promote ethical principles. It may not occur to the activist to address the crushing effects of long-term corruption in Mexico. Yet Mexico’s failure is obvious when placed next to the catechism [1908] that reads: “…the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties.”

A clear indictment of Mexico for failure to develop its society and its economy, so that its citizens are not forced to become economic refugees, would go a long way to relieve distrust and suspicion on the part of American citizens. Such an indictment would reassure Americans that immigration reform activists are not trying to impose Mexico’s problems on the U.S.

When we understand this viewpoint and seek to become a trusted peace broker, we gain the humility we need to cease blaming Americans for Mexico’s problems. We understand the “blame America” approach of radical activists leads to increasing division.

Becoming a Trusted Peace Broker

If activists acknowledge the historical record, that whenever Marxism has taken root violence soon followed, they would be seen as legitimate and insightful problem solvers. Opponents of immigration reform would join them at the table, feeling they had a negotiating partner with whom they could engineer creative solutions that bring true security and happiness to all stakeholders.

In reverse, when we push ideology or narrow political solutions we create opponents. We also create opponents when we fail to take seriously the catechism [1916]:

Fraud and other subterfuges, by which some people evade the constraints of the law and the prescriptions of societal obligation, must be firmly condemned because they are incompatible with the requirements of justice.”

When we are diligent in rooting out and exposing fraud and other subterfuges, we become trusted brokers of peace. Franciscans who wish to bring peace, in particular, must make sure activists who resort to fraud and subterfuge do not compromise their reputation.

When we touch the generous hearts of Americans with honesty and humility, while providing a forum for well-reasoned solutions, we gain allies and friends who, ultimately, will make those solutions a success. We gain allies when we respect the edict that states, “Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man.” [Catechism 1929] Francis excelled at bringing transcendent dignity to the table; his legacy provides Franciscans with a unique and valuable gift to share. We must ask ourselves how we can be most effective in delivering that gift.

Honor All Stakeholders

All too often we focus narrowly on the rights of those for whom we advocate. We forget that the discussion of rights, and solutions that flow from those rights, must include all parties and stakeholders. When we appear to rob our opponents of their dignity and their rights, we fail to craft enduring outcomes. Instead, we set the stage for civil strife. The following words from the catechism apply:

Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority; by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.” [1931]

When we resort to partisan activism we risk demonizing our opponents, we risk failing to recognize their dignity and their rights. On the other hand, when we assume the role of mediator or conflict specialist, the constraints of the role itself provide safeguards. Our task is to recognize the dignity and the interests of all parties; we nurture relationships that lead to collaborative solutions. Social justice cannot be achieved when one party acts alone; in the end, social justice comes from relationship, from sacred I-Thou relationships. Creating such relationships is what St. Francis did so well.

In the next post, the last in the series, I emphasize the need to avoid corruption if we are to live the legacy of Francis.

St. Francis: Mediator or Political Activist? Series Posts

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4: Civility in Discourse
• Part 5: Facilitating Engagement & Dialogue
• Part 6: Resurrection Politics and Rules for Radicals
• Part 7: Immigration Reform
• Part 8: Beyond Corruption and Deception

Related Posts

• New Path to Immigration Reform
• Resolving Unintentional Immigration Insult
• Beyond Corruption and Deception
• Mosque in Manhattan
• Resurrection Politics and Rules for Radicals