OPEN BORDERS VS. CLOSED BORDERS...THAT IS THE QUESTION

Truth be known, I am perplexed and torn on the issue of immigration.  My Christian upbringing tells me that we should welcome newcomers to Canada with open arms.  On the other hand, while I oppose a fortress mentality, I am not so naive as to not understand that there are certain ramifications inherent in open borders.

Those on opposing sides of the political aisle as well as economists offer pros and cons for keeping borders open and also exercising caution on border policy.  Supporters of open borders say they help keep the balance of free trade going with other countries, allowing for the free flow of goods and services.

From a human rights standpoint, they argue that "free migration" helps to cut poverty around the world, allowing those who live in underdeveloped nations and who need work to move to places that have more opportunities. Typically, workers who move tend to send part of their income or wages back to families in poorer countries.

Opponents charge that in an increasingly dangerous world, open borders threaten national security. They also note that "large scale migration across open borders can result in demographic changes that can result in demographic shifts that change a country's political power structures in favor of the new demographic and against the existing people of a region or country."

Economists point to infrastructure deficit as large groups of people migrate to a new country but infrastructure is not in place to support them there.

Immigration issues and border policies have long been contentious issues in politics, but they are also creating a significant divide in the Christian community.

Many Christian houses of worship have embraced a “love thy neighbor” stance, arguing for benevolent treatment of immigrants seeking a better life. Some churches have even begun harboring illegal immigrants to prevent them from being deported.

However, there is a distinct sub-group of Christians who have taken the opposite position, throwing their support behind more stringent border policies that limit immigration to Canada and the U.S. Cracking down on immigration is not only in the best interest of the country, they argue, but it’s also in complete accordance with biblical teachings.

Time and time again, Pope Francis has been a champion for immigration rights. He advocates for relaxing immigration policies and moving in the direction of an “open border” approach. Just last week, in fact, the pontiff reaffirmed the Church’s commitment to protecting immigrants.

Francis’ views reflect a compassion-minded Christianity, an ideology shared by many within the faith that focuses on promoting goodwill and kindness — no strings attached. Indeed, this overarching theme of benevolence toward foreigners is present throughout scripture. To give just two examples:

• Exodus 23:9: “You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
• Leviticus 19:34: “You will regard the stranger who resides with you as the native-born among you.”

Seems pretty clear cut, right? Well, not exactly.

“The Bible Supports Stronger Borders”

By its very nature, the Bible is interpreted differently by different people. In sharp contrast to the papal position, there are those Christians who insist the “compassionate” view is both naive and misguided. Not only do they disagree with the concept of open borders on political grounds, but these folks argue the Bible actually supports stronger borders.

To understand this point of view, let’s examine a few other biblical passages:

• Matthew 5:42: Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
• Deuteronomy 15:11: “For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.”
• Luke 10:25-37: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

On face value, these verses seem to advocate kindness and compassion toward everyone. Not necessarily, say opponents of immigration. First of all, they point out that such passages use the word “you” – a direct personal appeal to the individual. Thus, they should not be taken as policy recommendations for the government. Rather, they are instructions for how one should conduct themselves on a personal level.

Secondly, such verses emphasize proximity. “In your land,” “your neighbor,” etc. Proponents of tougher immigration laws argue these verses do not refer to people living in other countries oceans away, just those nearby. So while the Bible does call for generosity toward the needy, they believe we should focus on helping those already in the country before trying to solve the world’s problems.

Which View is More Compelling?

Where do you stand? Does following the teachings of the Bible mean helping others no matter what, or would Jesus approve of deportations and turning people away at the border as a matter of federal policy?

Above all, perspective is needed but there may never be consensus on this matter.

NEW THEORY: HITLER'S CONCENTRATION CAMPS PATTERNED OFF INDIGENOUS RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS IN CANADA

I have written extensively about the injustices suffered by our First Canadian brothers and sisters in residential schools over the years and the subsequent apologies and reconciliation efforts initiated by the church organizations that operated the institutions.

It was with a great deal of interest recently that I learned of native-born Canadian and historical expert Baron Alexander Deschauer’s new, Concentration Camps of Canada book that examines the little-known fact that long before Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, the Canadian residential school system aimed to forcibly assimilate Indigenous peoples by taking children from their parents. Abuse and exploitation were rife, and many children died during this time.

I had never before considered the Hitler concentration camp connection, or similarity. 

Unknown to most, and utilizing techniques that inspired Hitler’s concentration camps of  Nazi-era Germany, in the 1880s Canada waged a genocidal war against its Indigenous people. In his new book, Deschauer tells the fictional story of Migizi Baswenaazhi, a young Indigenous boy, who is taken from his home and placed into one of these harsh schools, where he’s assigned the name David Bass.

The inspiration for the book’s title is from Supreme Court Justice Beverly McLachlin’s 2015 lecture to the Global Centre for Pluralism, during which she stated that Canada attempted to commit “cultural genocide” against Indigenous Canadians. “Many individuals, Canadian or not, have no clue of the injustices visited upon the Indigenous peoples by the Canadian government,” says Deschauer. “I was one of those Canadians until very recently and hope that through Concentration Camps of Canada, I can further inform others of the injustices Indigenous people have endured and continue to endure.”

In an eye-opening and thought-provoking interview around the release of Concentration Camps of Canada, Deschauer discusses:

• The Canadian residential school system, which aimed to forcibly assimilate Indigenous peoples by taking children from their parents.

• What life was like for the wards inside these school systems.

• The Canadian government’s recent efforts to apologize to the victims of these residential schools of the past.

• How these institutions may have acted as a model for Hitler’s own concentration camps in Nazi Germany.

ABOUT BARON: Basic training with the Canadian Reserves, entering a monastery, and sleeping on the sides of roads while hitch-hiking through Europe are just a few of the moments from the life of Baron Alexander Deschauer. Sanity, university, and the need to earn a living led him to a B.Ed., BA, and LLB before embarking on an entrepreneurial life in London, England. Although he can order food, look for a toilet, and find directions in German, Mandarin, French, and Hebrew, he follows the wise words of Clint Eastwood — “A man should know his limitations.” — and now only writes in English.​ In his quest to better understand the world around him, he has written a number of books exploring existence (Revelation and Faust), capital (The Art of Wealth) and the complex interplay of will, luck, fate, and hope (his Man on the Run series).

AN UPDATE ON GOVERNMENT ACTION: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently asked Pope Francis to apologise for the Catholic Church’s role in what has been described as an act of “cultural genocide”.  Pope Francis is reported to be considering the possibility of an apology. The request for an apology is a significant landmark in a long campaign fought by One Young World Counsellor and human rights campaigner Senator Murray Sinclair over the damage caused by the infamous residential schools system.

The request for a papal apology came as Amnesty International announced that its prestigious Ambassador of Conscience award for 2017 was being given to Canada’s Indigenous Rights Movement, shared with the singer and refugee rights campaigner Alicia Keys.

Senator Murray Sinclair

Senator Sinclair was named as one of six individual indigenous rights activists chosen to accept the award. The One Young World Counsellor, who attended last year’s Summit in Ottawa and addressed a Special Session on peace and reconciliation, was chair of Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which gathered stories of residential school survivors. The Commission produced a 2015 report which recommended ways for the country to come to terms with the legacy of the schools system.

“The evidence is mounting that the government did try to eliminate the culture and language of Indigenous people for well over a hundred years,” Senator Sinclair told Canadian broadcaster CBC, prior to the Vatican meeting. “As commissioners we have concluded that cultural genocide is probably the best description of what went on here…they did it by forcibly removing children from their families and placing them within institutions that were cultural indoctrination centres.”

Senator Sinclair told the Globe & Mail newspaper in 2015 that it was crucial that the Prime Minister personally secured the apology from the Pope. “That is a request that, we think, has got to come from the highest official in the country because it is almost a nation-to-nation request,” he said. “So I would hope that that request would be communicated at that level.”

In its 2015 report, the commission recommended that the Catholic Church issue a formal apology for its part in the residential school system. Similar apologies have been issued by Anglican, Presbyterian and United Churches, who along with the Catholic Church helped run the schools as joint ventures with the Canadian government.  In the early going I sat on a Presbyterian Church in Canada "Truth and Reconciliation" committee.

In 2008, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology on behalf of Canadians, calling it “a sad chapter in our history”. A year later, Pope Benedict offered a personal apology to the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Canada, Phil Fontaine, expressing his “sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church”.  But the apology was not accepted by the TRC as the meeting was private and the apology was not offered to the survivors of the school system.

ONCE A JOURNALIST, ALWAYS A JOURNALIST; CLEAN AND UNBIASED

A Facebook friend of long standing, and I, have been exchanging thoughts on what constitutes good journalism.

Right off the bat, I should clarify that I am an old-school journalist. Printer's ink runs through my veins. I came by my training the hard way, with the seat of my pants firmly planted in front of an old Underwood typewriter on a battle-scarred, institutional gray metal desk occupied by countless others before me -- rewrite after rewrite, learning from my errors which were plenty and developing a thick skin as a defense mechanism against an editor's sharp barbs and critiques.

My bible was always the Canadian Press Style Guide -- authoritative, principled, sometimes capricious, a mixture of sombre injunctions and practical rules. My friend, oddly enough, suggests that "journalists do not make the rules".  Of course they don't, but they sure as hell are required to live by them; otherwise risking losing their jobs. The fundamentals of good journalism are constant -- a sharp eye, an inquiring mind, a passion for accurate information and appropriate words...and working long hours any time of the day or night.

Now here's where the general perception of journalism goes a bit awry. Someone has said that the difference between a journalist and a reporter is a little like the difference between a police officer and a homicide detective; the second is just a specific instance of the first. While there are many different kinds of careers in journalism, a reporter's job covers a narrower scope and requires a specific skill set.

There is some controversy, however, about the precise definition of the term "journalist".  For the uninitiated, a journalists is somebody who gathers and disseminates information on public affairs, usually for a newspaper or periodical publication, a news broadcast, or for some other electronic form of distribution. While this definition clearly includes the role of reporter, other information workers such as editors, news anchors, publishers, columnists and opinion writers are also considered journalists. (My friend, incidentally, tends to give more credence to columnists and opinion writers, especially those who embrace his particular stance, or bias, on a given subject. He claims to enjoy differences of opinion which is perfectly understandable...To each, his own.  I, on the other hand, line up behind good straightforward news reporting from which I form my own opinions.)

It should be understood that a reporter has a more specific function within the realm of journalism. Reporters are usually engaged in the direct gathering and communication of public information, usually through primary information sources such as first-person interviews, news conferences and attendance at news events. The material they communicate is usually -- but not always -- limited to the facts they have gathered; editorializing or sharing opinions on the news is not considered part of the reporter's role.

More so than most other journalists, reporters must be able to develop and locate their own sources of information. They must be able to work quickly; usually reporters work under deadline pressure, and some must meet multiple deadlines per day. Reporters must be able to keep accurate notes and record information faithfully. As eyewitnesses to events, it is their perceptions that determine what readers will learn about the news.

Remember too, that reporter journalists are paid to deliver hard and fast news while commentators of all ilks, editorialists and opinion columnists to be specific, are paid to be entertainingly controversial within reason, often flirting with slander. Personally, I shy away from controversy if at all possible and I take unqualified opinion with a degree of reservation.  I would dearly prefer that journalism not be all-inclusive, but readily live with the accepted definition of the discipline.

I was initially paid ($40.00 a week) in 1961 to be a cub reporter.  It took a good 10 years for me to reach the stage where I was presumed qualified to be paid, in part, for my editorial opinions on a page in the newspaper designated specifically for that purpose. I never once lost sight, however, of my reportorial convictions of fairness and balance and expected the same of my newsroom staff once promoted to management.

The question of who is and is not a journalist has grown thornier with the growth of new information sources such as blogs and podcasts. Journalists were once defined as employees of newspapers, wire services or broadcast news organizations. But the advent of "citizen journalism" -- amateurs who witness events and write about them on the Internet or (heaven help us) impose opinions and biases of their own  -- has blurred the lines between the professional journalist and the mere bystander. The question is important, because journalists are provided certain protections, such as the right to conceal the identity of confidential sources, which ordinary citizens are not.

Ordinary citizens now consider that it is their right to say anything they want about public figures and situations in print and on social media and get away with it.  Regurgitation of another party's sarcasm, or hiding behind it, has become the accepted norm. In the public relations business we used to refer to it as having someone else chop wood for you.  It is my contention, on the other hand, that the core principles of ethical journalism provide an excellent base for everyone who aspires to launch themselves into the public information domain.  We all have a responsibility in how we use and present information.

Where I come from you simply do not demean someone publicly, including politicians, as lacking in morals, ignorant, disgraceful, shameful, dishonest (you add your own frequently used adjectives) for effect or without just cause just to buoy your own self esteem and sense of self righteousness. There are those who will argue that public figures are fair game but, I am sorry, it is personally distasteful and below my dignity. I lose respect for those who stoop to such a level.

If people would only realize that the most legitimate opinions can be diminished when accompanied by insults and derogatory remarks.  And don't try to tell me that innuendo and sarcasm expressed by Joe Blow from Kokomo ever held anyone to account. While entertaining to some, generally it only contributes to societal unrest and bitterness, even among friends.

There are hundreds of codes of conduct, charters and statements made by media and professional groups outlining the principles, values and obligations of the craft of journalism. Most focus on five common themes: truth and accuracy, independence, fairness and impartiality, humanity and accountability.

My aforementioned friend, who offers well-intended sage advice in urging me to relax and to enjoy the "free" expressions of others, forgets one thing...And that is that there is nothing enjoyable or relaxing in the expressions of others when they are biased, negative, misinformed, insulting, insensitive and downright mean.

I will take my old school communication principles to the grave with me...And if that makes me an unpopular, crotchety, behind-the-times former journalist in a misguided era of speech freedom and personality crucifixion -- then so be it!

When my easy-going, tolerant nature wanes; an attack mode has been known to click in.  And it is never pretty.