Liberty For All

In honor and in memory of Josefina Ahumada, a champion for human rights and for fairer border policies, and a friend.

For one of my seminary classes this week, I watched a video about human rights, featuring international law scholar Philip Alston. In the video, Alston talks about the International Bill of Rights, the core human rights treaty of the United Nations. The International Bill of Rights states that all human rights must be protected in order for people to truly be free. They include in that not only civil and political human rights, but also social and economic human rights, such as the right to healthcare, education, a living wage, and so on.

All of the nations in the United Nations agree and adhere to these human rights agreements, except for one. Want to guess which one?

If you guessed ours, you would be right. The United States has traditionally separated with the UN on human rights' issues when it comes to social and economic human rights. We see this all the time in our country, for example the debate around universal healthcare and the Covid response and of course, the ever-increasing divide between the rich and the poor.

In the US, we believe in protecting only the civil and political rights of people. Social and economic factors are not considered rights but rather privileges that must be earned.

Why are we like this?

According to Alston, back in the 1940s the United States' biggest preoccupation was communism. There was a great amount of fear that communism would end our democracy. This period of history was called the "Red Scare". The politicians and people in power at the time took steps to actively prevent the spread of communism. These steps were largely reactionary more than anything else.

One of those steps was rejecting the International Bill of Rights (which, according to Alston, was based at least in part upon a proposal by American President Franklin D Roosevelt for a 2nd Bill of Rights). Assisting the poor and providing people with even basic social and economic rights was considered socialism. And, as socialism is often associated with communism*, it was rejected. This rejection still runs deep in conservative politics, where government "interference" is considered the worst thing ever and where loan forgiveness and welfare programs like food stamps and Medicaid/Medicare (certainly Obamacare) are often targets for budget cuts.

Another step taken during the 40s and 50s in order to prevent communism was the tying of religion to politics. It was believed that Christians would be less receptive to communism, and so political and public awareness campaigns began to link Christianity and faith in God to conservative values and American patriotic pride. People were encouraged to go to church and to pray for their political leaders. "In God We Trust" was added to American currency. "Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance. The narrative of America as a "Christian nation" became more and more common. 

Ironically, these two steps stand in contradiction with one another. The very rights we were rejecting as a country were rights God emphasizes in the Bible, and yet, politicians managed to convince Christians it would be better without them.

The Bible has a lot to say about basic human rights and providing for the poor. The Old Testament law sought after a society where all people were taken care of and where there was no poverty. Land was divided out evenly in order for everyone to have some. Generous lending, debt forgiveness, and gleaning from the fields provided grace and sustenance for those who were struggling. 

The Old Testament highlights three particular groups of people who were to be cared for: the orphan, the widow, and the foreigner. These three groups were identified as the most vulnerable and the most likely to fall into poverty. Therefore, the Old Testament believers were commanded to provide special provision for them. These commandments are echoed by the New Testament authors as well.

In "Power and Privilege", author Dewi Hughes states, "Throughout history poverty has been largely unnecessary." Poverty happens when a group of people decide to hoard power and privilege and resources to themselves at the expense of other groups of people. This world has plenty to offer everyone if we were instead interested in equitable distribution and caring for those who need extra assistance.

I live about an hour and a half from the US/Mexico border. Here, we constantly see this dance of those who want to hoard everything for themselves and those who are suffering because of it. We also see those who fight back against the system, determined to live with open-handed generosity. Interestingly enough, there are Christians on both sides of this struggle.

The resistance I encountered when talking to my conservative Christian family and conservative Christian church about the work I was doing with asylum seekers at the border is an example. I was told, by Christians, "if we help them, there won’t be enough for ourselves", and, "we have to take care of our own first". I have heard Christians pray for God to "protect our borders" and "send the people somewhere else". This is a fallacy of thinking - and very contrary to the Word of God. 

On the other side, there are Christian groups and individuals involved in helping the foreigners coming to the border. They serve because they believe Jesus meant what He said when He commanded us to welcome the stranger, clothe the naked and feed the hungry.

They go on long walks into the desert and give water to those dying of thirst. They go to the wall and give blankets to those freezing in the desert temperatures at night while waiting for Border Patrol to pick them up. They go into the detention centers to visit those who have committed no crime and yet who are being held for interminable amounts of time while their detention stays make the wealthy owners of the centers even wealthier. They go to shelters where the lucky few who make it here arrive with nothing but the clothes on their back and the holes in their shoes, and they love them. They love them because Jesus would love them. They love them because they believe every human being deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. Deserves not to be torn away from their children and not to be left to drown in a river and not to die alone in the desert. 

These are the orphans and the widows and the foreigners of today. Or at least, these are the ones in my backyard.

I have looked in their eyes. I have held their hands. I have heard their stories. I have been the bearer of bad news, telling people their loved one was being held in detention indefinitely, or even worse, that their loved one had died in the desert.

I have been inspired by their strength and their resilience and yes, even by their faith. They went through hell to be here. The very least we could do for them, is to give them a soft landing when they arrive. 

Who are the ones in your backyard? The poor in our country are just getting poorer. Capitalism is a great system for those on top, whose wealth has multiplied exponentially over the past decade. Meanwhile, cost of living has increased and wages have not, and more and more families - often families with children - are falling into poverty. American Indian, Black, and Hispanic families have even higher rates of poverty.

In "The Alternative" by Mauricio L Miller, he writes, "The difference between [the rich and poor] was not just a lack of money or material things. The real difference was in the hidden privileges and expectations about how to deal with power structures and the belief in how you could shape your future."

There are few options for the poor. Few opportunities to get out of poverty. 

All because we are scared of communism? Perhaps more likely, all because those at the top want to hoard it all for themselves.

The poor in our country, the poor coming to our country, deserve better.

We must do better.

"I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept." - Angela Davis

*It should be noted that socialism and communism are related but not the same. They do both reject capitalism in favor of a more equal or equitable distribution of resources. Communism however is a more strict, more authoritarian type of government where the government owns and governs everything, deciding who receives what, and where individual rights are often restricted. In socialism, the goal is a redistribution of wealth so everyone has what they need according to their contribution to society.