Our Fence. Our Answer.

With awe and pride, dismay and shame, or total disinterest, you may now lift your gaze upon the not-so-great American fence. Follow your inclination. But regardless of how you feel about it, and whatever it is or will become, it reflects what America is becoming. It is totally ours.

China has The Great Wall. It's an enormous achievement and enduring testament to ancient China's resolve, resourcefulness, industry and commitment to the defense of its civilization and protection of its people. In Mandarin, it is called Chang Cheng, or long city. And given its design, materials and craftsmanship, its breadth, height and length, it did indeed function as a city or home of sorts for the many who manned it and defended their country on it. And they turned back would-be conquerors on many occasions in its history. It is a wonder of construction and a statement of early civilization to the world.

Then there was the notorious, ignoble Berlin Wall. More functionally basic, crude, actually, in its design and materials of construction, it was nonetheless imposing as a barrier to keep East Germans and others to the Soviet East from crossing into West Berlin and freedom. And while many died amid gunfire trying to make that crossing, about 5000 made the dash to a new life and lived to enjoy it. It's stature and standing with posterity lies not in the wonder of an enduring edifice, but in its complete destruction: a symbol of oppression, a barrier to freedom, rendered a long, dusty pile of debris as the winds of freedom blew West to East. It's destruction was a relief and a statement for freedom to the world.

And we have a fence, of sorts--a fence we are still cobbling together, a piece here, a piece there, of different designs and materials, a rude, utilitarian effort to be sure. I mean, a wall is monolithic, substantial and imposing--and it stands for something understood, or at least clearly stated. So, it's hard to even call our fence a wall. And it's such a patch-work quilt of a fence, at that. And somehow its unimpressive, ignominious appearance seems appropriate for the sentiments that inspire its building. But it's still our fence. We wanted it.

So, to what great purpose has this not-so-noble fence been erected? To what great principal of freedom, honor, fairness, justice, or defense of the poor or weak? Will sublime sentiments and statements of enlightened American identity grace statues and monuments raised to this all-too-pedestrian work? Or, is it possible that--perhaps--its greatest purpose and the most enduring principle will someday be found in its destruction, too. For it is unlikely that this rude fence will ever be spoken of in the same breath as Concord's rude bridge. And it's also unlikely that the great French-American lady or these great American sentiments will be found anywhere near the fence along our Southwestern borders:

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

--Emma Lazarus, Statue of Liberty

I know, you call me idealistic, and more, unrealistic and impractical. But I ask you, When did we stop thinking, seeking better answers, and solving problems? When did we stop defending the historic first principles of this great American experiment of immigrant peoples seeking freedom and democracy? When did we start thinking about walls, protectionism, and isolation.

In truth, I know, there have always been those among us who have quickly lost their progressive spirit of invitation and sharing, and turned to supporting exclusionary policies and protecting what is now theirs. Fortunately, the welcoming sentiments of the grateful and hopeful majority have always defended and advanced the foundations of our identity and our strength. Until now.

Something has changed--dramatically, frighteningly--in recent years. I recognize in our approach to illegal immigration and our Southwestern borders the same thoughtless, blunt-force approach and answers that led us into the Iraq War and our arrogant, self-defeating approach to diplomacy with friend and foe alike. Again we are giving up the high ground of principle, of well-informed, thoughtful answers that serve both the American community and the world community.

But I do recognize the need to police and protect our borders, particularly this long open border with Mexico. I do recognize the problems with illegal immigration along that long border, and the need to address them. And as this Time article chronicles, parts of the fence, properly placed and manned, can be reasonably effective. I just wish this fence was not the answer. I don't like what it stands for. And I am not alone. In fact, as reported in an Economist article, many Americans along the border, especially the Texas border, question whether it isn't all just an over-reaction. Certainly, high-tech surveillance could replace a lot of that fence, and produce a less denying, more welcoming image of the new America.

Regardless, I agree that to some extent, portions of the fence may be part of the answer, but not the most important part. The real answer requires reformation of our immigration policies and procedures, and better information available about the opportunities that await aspiring immigrants.

We know that most immigrants come to the US for work and the opportunity for a better life. And of the 12 million-plus illegal aliens now in the U.S., the vast majority are gainfully employed. We know, as we are again witnessing, that when the economy is weaker, and jobs and opportunity do not welcome them, illegal immigrants often return home. These simple facts tell us an enormous amount about the need for changes in policy and procedures:

• Our current immigration policy does not adequately consider the growing demands of American employers for increases in the workforce, increases that only immigrants seeking work can fill. Among those groups most strongly supporting the need for immigrant workers--whether legal or not--are American employers. And since many who come through Mexico illegally come only for work, not citizenship, a substantial guest worker program would seem to serve the interests of all.

• A credible, on-going process of polling potential employers and estimating potential employment of immigrants should be a basic element that informs our immigration policy and the setting of quotas.

• That same information should be provided through clearinghouses and public media to Mexico and all countries of potential immigrants. For surely far fewer of these desperate souls will take the substantial risks of illegal entry during those times when it is clear that jobs and opportunity do not await them. And when jobs are again on the ascendency, a process of legal immigration that accommodates many more potential workers might be considerably more attractive than illegal alternatives.

• A good and fair policy would extend the increased opportunity across an appropriate range and number of countries, including Mexico.

• Lastly, for those among the 12 million illegal aliens who seek legal status, there must be an attractive and workable process of amnesty and legalized entry. Let's be realistic. Our employers need most of those workers, and there is no effective and financially feasible way to deport them all. They have just been a convenient political issue for populist demagoguery. Of course, they would have to make the appropriate commitments to bring themselves reasonably into conformance with fair, achievable expectations for legal immigrants: whatever is practicable, whatever is right.

But there are many clever people whose responsibility it is to be better acquainted with the details of all this than I. Surely they can fashion still better answers than these. But who will act on them? Where are our statesmen-leaders? As all this resolves itself, or not, I leave you with some thoughts expressed in my essay on illegal immigration, "Strangers, Different Folks" in my Cassandra's Tears series:

What we shouldn't do, what we can't do, is be moved by the disingenuous voices with narrow cultural or ideological axes to grind, or the opportunistic demagogues with political ambitions. Look past these angry, misleading people with their own selfish, xenophobic and exclusionary goals. Think past their rhetoric that is intended to stir, inflame and divide people. Be the great people of promise, opportunity and community that we have the potential to be and often have been. ...Only if the pose we strike is as welcoming as it is practical and realistic can we minimize the problems that inevitably arise.

Our heart for people and community, like my faith, calls us to reach out to the strangers, the different folk, to invite them and welcome them in. But there will be complications. There will be issues of our national need or ability to assimilate, practical limits on how many we can welcome and the conditions of the invitation. Nevertheless, we must hold tight to that impulse, that leading, toward an open mind and welcoming spirit.