A Migrant’s Response…Where do I begin? By Nicole Ashwood
Han eena lion mout; tek time draw i’ out!
(When you are in a position of vulnerability; be very careful in your interactions)
Jamaican proverb
This proverb is rather profound for me as I prepare to write; for, as a legal permanent resident in the United States of America it may be instructive for me to be very careful in reflecting on the topic of migration. In this season where migrants may be arrested/deported for many and varied infractions (real or perceived), and where citizens have reported feeling that their constitutional freedom of expression were violated (by being punished for political responses to justice matters). Thus, with great alacrity I seek to speak on a matter best reserved for hushed and slow conversations, while looking over one’s shoulder lest one is overheard and penalized for engaging in ‘free speech’.
Where then, does one begin the conversation about migration? Perhaps with the economics of migration. Applications for resident status represent a billion-dollar international industry. In the USA, approximately 6 million applications are received annually for processing (yet only 65,000 H1B visas are issued). The Schengen states report that 14.6 million short stay visas were issued in 2017, suggesting that there were more applications which may have been denied. This does this account for applications for permanent resident status. Additionally, the UK reports 135.2M arrivals in in 2017, making no distinction between permanent stay or short-term arrivals. No visa application is free, and the type of visa being sought impacts the costs payable, so one can only imagine the amount of monies being collected internationally – within the global North and South (most countries have visa requirements, not just in the North), especially where the demand for visas/entry permits generally outweigh the supply.
The conversation may also begin with the fear encasing a body physically and emotionally when there is a report of criminal activities by foreigners residing in/visiting more ‘developed’ nations. In these instances, immigrants, documented and undocumented, express the wish that the alleged/convicted perpetrator will not turn out to hail from one’s own country, as there are often long-term repercussions on travel. And, when a criminal act is committed against a foreigner, one tends to worry about the perception others may entertain about their country. These are very real fears of migrants, even when they have become naturalised residents of the host country.
Prior to resident status, however, the migration conversation may also include the sense of being stripped of one’s humanity as one becomes a mere statistic of quotas to be filled, rejected or deferred, both at the consular level or at the border entry point. Whichever point of entry, it is often very humiliating to be a suspect until proven innocent of desiring to abuse the hospitality being extended by a host country. This contradicts the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.” (Article 11). In the wake of 9-11, terror attacks on embassies/consulates, as well as major international cities/hubs, have been strategically effective in perpetuating the cocoon of fear which has pervaded the minds of many and harboured a mistrust of foreigners. That, coupled with the actions of some foreigners upon entry in a host country, betray trust and creates a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ in the minds of many, birthing a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ attitude toward all foreigners.
All of these are pertinent, and are in fact relevant, to my own circumstance. At some point or another, I have experienced similar frustrations, fears and mental disquiet. If these were all there was to migration, to the impulse that moves people to cross borders from their own countries to others, one could surmise that foreigners should simply leave host countries alone. Simple. Or as someone once told me, if you have so many concerns, don’t stay. But, of a certainty, it is not that simple. Many migrants arrive on the shores of their ‘benefactors’ in the pursuit of a new way of being—one which affords them possibilities of happiness. This goal and right was chronicled and immortalised in the United States of America’s Declaration of Independence (accredited to Thomas Jefferson), as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
One may argue about what construes happiness to another, and whether that person has earned the right to ‘happiness’ at the expense of another. Happiness is best located in the theological realm, for all other efforts are merely fleeting and subject to debate. Equality, on the other hand, ought not be as relative, except that we all have varied views of equality – especially when it relates to migration. And that’s the rub. For when a nation’s wealth is built on migrants (be it America, nations in Europe or even countries elsewhere who depend on tourism as their mainstay)—to what extent ought they screen who seeks ‘happiness’ within their boundaries? [And, before my European allies get all hot and bothered, I wish to point them to the establishment of hegemony and fiscal undergirding resultant from the legalized trafficking in persons of the 15th through the 17th centuries. It wasn’t only England, Spain, France and the Dutch; some ‘colonies’ were governed by multiple countries through their history and the potpourri/melange of cultures living in the Indies bear testimony to that.] Nor is migration as new a topic as it sometimes seems to be treated.
We note firstly that the children of Israel were migrants. Consider the following pericope,
‘When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you as a special possession …Go to the priest in charge at that time and … say in the presence of the Lord your God, “My ancestor Jacob was a wandering Aramean who went to live as a foreigner in Egypt. His family arrived few in number, but in Egypt they became a large and mighty nation.” Deuteronomy 26:1, 3, 5 (NLT)
These instructions offer the opportunity to remember that the heritage of Israel involved migration, and tacitly encourages this consciousness in their recounting of their cultic history. That being said, we recognize that the subsequent Hebrew treatment of migrants chronicled in the biblical narrative and even today underscores a cosmology of conquest and exclusivity, not inclusion. This is not necessarily what the canon suggests, as the extension of the Aramean narrative clearly states in Leviticus 19, “Do not take advantage of foreigners who live among you in your land. Treat them like native-born Israelites, and love them as you love yourself. Remember that you were once foreigners living in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” (v.33-34 NLT)
So what then is the desired attitude toward migrants? Do we welcome just about any foreigner who visits our shores, or is it okay to establish stringent foreign policy upon all and sundry? Should we explore the birth narratives of Jesus, especially the Matthean toddler story which presents Jesus as a refugee, and use that unspoken testimony to shape our treatment of foreigners? And, if we have taken that trajectory, do we recognise that Jesus was a refugee, possibly illegally arrived, to Egypt, thus recognizing the need to treat foreigners with care, recognizing that an emissary of the Messiah may very well be in our midst? One can only imagine the treatment Jesus would receive as a migrant/refugee in this postmodern, post-religious era of DACA, ICE and border patrols. Thankfully, Mary and Joseph were WITH Jesus. But what of DNA tests, when Jesus is OBVIOUSLY NOT Joseph’s child! (What would Maury think?!!!!!) Visas have been denied on these grounds the world over. Furthermore, how in the world would Jesus qualify as a refugee when His family only seemed to be fleeing the genocide of the day and is unlikely to have possessed proof of hardship or persecution (having left Israelite territory PRIOR to the actual Murder of the Innocents (Matthew 2:13-18)? Was Egypt a sanctuary country and did they maintain diplomatic relations which could impinge on receiving migrants from whole states of Pax Romana? As a woodworker/carpenter/tradesman, how would Joseph’s tax returns qualify him for possible citizenship in Rome, and were they ‘deported’ back into Israel, necessitating their relocation to the hill country? How easily could Joseph – and Mary – transition back into society, and what were the employment opportunities for ‘deportees’, common laborers within their fishing village?
This conversation may have felt disjointed and discombobulated. Unfortunately. that captures my emotional state as a migrant – neither fish nor fowl. And, until you have undergone this, you cannot grasp what it means to be a migrant in today’s fear-stained world.
The Rev. Nicole ‘Nicqi’ Ashwood is Jamaican by birth, Caribbean by life experience and a migrant by divine design. She is a student of the world who is passionate about advocacy for equality in a ‘Less than’ world