This Passover, We Stand for Freedom!
For folks looking to add some action to their passover, join JFREJ and fabulous jewish radicals Tony Kushner, Adrienne Rich, Ruth Messinger, Rabbi David Ellenson, Barbara Dobkin, Rabbi Rolando Matalon, Laura Whitehorn and more in a powerful call for Jews to join in a public petition campaign to be placed in newspapers around the country in support of immigrant rights.
-
The letter:
In the coming weeks, Jews across the country will be celebrating Passover by re-telling the story of the Exodus – a time when we broke through the borders of enslavement to find freedom in a new land.
The House of Representatives has already passed a bill that calls for immediately fining, detaining, and deporting any person with an immigration infraction – and for penalizing anyone who aids or assists undocumented immigrants. The Senate is currently debating how to move forward and is considering measures championed by politicians who are pandering to hatred and fear. As Jews, now is the time for us to stand up for human rights and be counted as a community who has not forgotten our own stories of Jewish immigration – both in the past and in the present day.
To a liberating Passover,
Tony Kushner, Adrienne Rich, Ruth Messinger, Rabbi David Ellenson, Barbara Dobkin, Rabbi Rolando Matalon, JFREJ and friends
So let me get this straight. When right-wingers invoke Judaism on behalf of their causes, it’s ludicrous (even Jews who know nothing about Judaism can laugh at it). But this sort of thing is okay.
“Fabulous Jewish radicals”. Hey, it’s all about being fabulous. Doing the right thing is boring.
the problem is not with right-wingers invoking judaism, it’s with right-wingers invoking judaism to support deplorable beliefs which run contrary to the highest values within our tradition
The highest values within our tradition? What could those be? Yesterday, someone said
“the torah says an eye for an eye. the rabbis say it means monetary compensation. is that to the right or the left? the torah says you should put people to death. the rabbis say if a sanhedrin rules in 70 years to execute someone, it should be considered an evil sanhedrin. is that to the right or to the left? what is to the right and to the left is debatable… through torah you can assert any direction as being the straight path.”
So if any direction is the straight path, how can the right-wingers be running contrary to anything in our tradition, let alone its “highest values” (whatever those are)?
While there are many things I could say, here’s just one: they’re misrepresenting HR4437. Should you trust what else they have to say?
torah is indeed what you can get away with, and the rabbis got away with creating a legacy and tradition which favors social justice by drawing from the torah and steering it into an overarching framework of charity and justice. certainly not in every case, of course, but more often than not. that said, our tradition vs. what you can get away with are not always one and the same.
TLB can you clarify–how is HR 4437 being misrepresented? They said: As you should know, during the House debate, Chairman Sensenbrenner offered an amendment to reduce the bill’s penalty for illegal presence from a felony to a misdemeanor. Unfortunately, this amendment was unsuccessful, primarily because all but eight of our Democratic colleagues decided to play political games by voting to make all illegal immigrants felons. A felony penalty is neither appropriate nor workable. We remain committed to reducing this penalty and working with you to this end.
So that means their bill still includes it as a felony. In fact read the full bill here or just the piece on “alien smuggling” here
You’re also supposed to follow the law of the land and in the United States you are not supposed to sneak over the border and never leave…
Perhaps those speakers would be better off influencing Mexico (and the other countries that most illegals come from) to improve freedom there than offering the US as the solution to the worlds problems. (i.e. to help people find freedom in a new land..) Also, did they support bringing freedom to Iraq? I’m just curious….
Mobius:
Your formulation doesn’t work; you have a serious contradiction problem. Either we have a tradition (though that can mean several things), OR Torah is what you can get away with (meaning that there is no actual tradition, or a tradition of no tradition, if you like). You can’t claim that Judaism is a free-for-all when it’s convenient (like when you advocate for things that can’t be found in the tradition, or things that are against it), and also claim a tradition when it’s convenient (as you do above).
As for “social justice”, that’s a loaded term. It generally used as a substitute for “Leftist economics and politics”. Just because Jewish tradition (generally) moved towards greater fairness as it went along doesn’t mean that Leftist ideas were ever the intended endpoint. There are all kinds of references to private property and economic freedom in the Torah and Talmud, as well as notions of self-reliance and limits to the amounts of charity to be given. The idea that the Torah moves toward “social justice” is a political notion from your own head, not a religious one from our tradition.
Either we have a tradition (though that can mean several things), OR Torah is what you can get away with (meaning that there is no actual tradition, or a tradition of no tradition, if you like).
nonsense. we have a tradition, and part of that tradition is that you have the freedom to navigate through the text to find your own hashkafa and personal authenticity. in that, there are “widely accepted communal standards” which constitute an overarching tradition, yet the acknowledgement of one’s freedom to deviate from such norms and stake out their own path. ie., there is a current which qualifies as “the tradition” and you have the right — if you can justify it halakhically — to go against the current if you feel that it brings you closer to fulfilling god’s word.
As for “social justiceâ€, that’s a loaded term. It generally used as a substitute for “Leftist economics and politicsâ€.
wow… taking care of the poor, the sick, and the needy, and struggling for human equality equates with “leftist economics and politics.” that’s nice.
There are all kinds of references to private property and economic freedom in the Torah and Talmud, as well as notions of self-reliance and limits to the amounts of charity to be given.
there are also concepts of kehilla taxes, tithing, bikur cholim, liberating slaves, loathing greed and excessive wealth, being a responsible businessman, promoting human equality, protecting criminals’ rights, making reasonable exemptions for abortion… not everyone who advocates a liberal social agenda is a communist opposed to property ownership (anarchism, for example, promotes private property ownership but communal ownership of water and energy resources); and certainly there’s infinite sense in saying “don’t give away more money than you have, as your first responsibility is to yourself and your family.” that doesn’t exempt you from giving tzedakah, and certainly he who gives more than he’s required (and not more than he has) is given a bigger portion of the world to come. these points you bring do not for a conservative economic agenda make.
The idea that the Torah moves toward “social justice†is a political notion from your own head, not a religious one from our tradition.
should i just start scanning dafs and posting them for you?
They say “penalizing anyone who aids or assists undocumented immigrants”, emphasis added.
As described here, the bill only includes those who knowingly or recklessly provide such aid. And, as Sensenbrenner points out in the previous link, it’s not intended for or will be applied to humanitarian aid. Would anyone be foolish enough to think that prosecutors are going to start bringing cases against those fabled soup kitchens?
TLB you’re killing me–you keep pointing me to sources that are blatantly anti-immigrant, right wing and supportive of HR 4437. We are taking about the same people who want to build double-layered, reinforced fence along 698 miles of the U.S-Mexico border at an estimated cost of $3.2 million per mile.
I’m not sure why you have so much faith in a government that has ALREADY harassed, arrested, detained indefinitely (and aiming to continue to do so) and deported massive numbers of immigrants, and have prosecuted people who have worked in their aid. WAKE UP! Both the House and Senate legislations CONTINUE to enact extensively harsh penaties. If this is something you agree with, so be it–many groups disagree and debate this issue–but JFREJ, and many of us, DO NOT agree with many parts of this legislative debate. So before you ask why people should trust JFREJ, a trusted organization that has been fighting for racial and economic justice for over 15 years, tell me, should we only trust you?
Well, TLB, I work in a program for homeless folks, and I have “knowingly” provided aid to at least one undocumented immigrant there. (I’m not sure if I’ve done so recklessly as a supporter of the bill, can you explain what the means? Offering assistance while weaving through traffic?) Am I likely to be prosecuted? Perhaps not, though it’s hard to tell. But is the administration of my program likely to be concerned about opening itself up to charges for committing a felony? Yes. And is that likely to chill what we do? Yes. And will that make this young man return to his home country? Of course not–he’ll just be left in an awful situation.
Is it likely to make some health clinics reluctant to treat undocumented immigrants? Yes. Is it likely to make many undocumented immigrants reluctant to seek crucial services like health care and police assistance? yes. And is this likely to have a positive impact on community health or crime rates? No. This is one reason why numerous medical organizations and police chiefs (yup!) have argued that they should not be involved in enforcing immigration law or reporting immigration status.
And is there any reason to think that a legal services agency which assists people with immigration issues WOULDN’T be prosecuted by a zealous federal prosecutor looking to make a name or prepare for a run for higher office?
Mistergoat S doesn’t understand what “reckless” means in a legal context, so I’d suggest doing some research.
The deeper reason those people have opposition to what you mention is because of politics, either of the far-left or of the pragmatic variety. Corruption might also play a part: the local bosses who profit off illegal immigration have simply paid off the cops.
Exactly how many legal services agencies have been prosecuted by zealous federal prosecutors in the last decade or so?
—
Cole Krawitz is confused. Building a wall to keep people out is not “anti-immigrant”. The wall will serve as a deterent: don’t try to cross the desert.
Those who would be called “pro-immigrant” are the ones who encourage prospective illegal immigrants to cross the desert.
It’s a bit like standing on the other end of a rickety rope bridge, yelling at people on the other side to “come on over!”
If there were no illegal immigration, there would be no desert deaths. Perhaps “liberals” should aim for that instead of being complicit in all those deaths.
Who’s confused? Definitely not me. Maybe you need a little of your own historical context to move you TLB. Check out jspot’s recent post on the history of Jews as “guest workers”
TLB, you’re correct, i don’t know what “reckless” means in a legal context, particularly when applied to offering aid to someone. I’m not a lawyer, and I have no shame about asking a question. So I asked if you could explain. You have not, which makes me wonder if you know either.
You ask, “Exactly how many legal services agencies have been prosecuted by zealous federal prosecutors in the last decade or so?” Since I was writing of the possible consequences of a law which has not yet passed, what’s happened in the past decade or so is not too relevant, is it?Moreover, to argue vociferously for a law, as you do for HR4437, but then to suggest that it won’t be enforced, strikes me as disingenuous at best.
And while this may make you conclude that I’m as “confused” as Cole, how exactly do you think that a wall will serve as any more of a deterrent than a deadly desert and a heavily armed border patrol? It’s hard to “deter” those who are desperate for a better life.
After following your links to your blog, I’m not terribly concerned with trying to convince you of anything. You and I obviously disagree. But I hope–and suspect–that other readers will see that your arguments don’t stand up.