Last week, I wrote about Scott Warren, who provided food, water and medical services to migrants who were fearing death in their native lands. I was interested in knowing more about Scott Warren and his work. I learned that he was 36 years old and worked with an organization called “No More Deaths.”
Government prosecutors Nathaniel Walters and Anna Wright said he was the “hub” of a conspiracy at his recent federal trial in Arizona on charges of aiding undocumented immigrants. Ross Carroll, writing in The Guardian, pointed to other charges against Warren including “driving in a wilderness area, entering a wildlife refuge without a permit and abandoning property,” the latter an apparent reference to leaving water, food and blankets. The absurdity of these charges would be laughable if the punishment weren’t so serious.
Warren also instructed new volunteers on distributing “harm reduction kits.” These consisted of chlorine to purify water, ointment for blisters, combs for removing cholla cactus spines, and a list of emergency numbers including 911. Do these actions sound like they are designed to shake the foundations of our republic?
Supporters of the “orange Satan” make the following argument: The migrants make a conscious decision to come north and by so doing violate U.S. law. Strict law enforcement will deter others from risking their lives in a fruitless endeavor.
There is no evidence to substantiate this claim. There is a name for this policy. It’s called zero tolerance. “Trumpites” can make the case that without borders we would be inundated with hordes of illegal immigrants. And as our president has stated, the illegals enter the U.S. carrying drugs, bringing disease and form gangs which commit serious crimes. The final argument is that it is unfair to all the legal immigrants who played by the rules.
The Center for Constitutional Rights points out that zero tolerance “is meant to be cruel…to punish families. It is intentionally inhumane.” The Southern Poverty Law Center states “the administration’s callous ‘zero tolerance’ policy ‘…ripped apart thousands of families at the border as they sought safety in the United States.'” One should also question the administration’s argument about disease and gangs. Most seeking safe harbor in the U.S. are law-abiding and hardworking. At least six children have died while in U.S. custody. This catastrophe could have been avoided if more money had been allocated for processing migrants.
Instead of building walls, we might think about ameliorating the economic conditions in Central America which lead to the “caravans.” Finally, it is hard to believe POTUS when he, according to the Washington Post, has lied or exaggerated over 10,000 times since taking office.
Having said this, one of the lessons we can learn has to do with the ends/means relationship. Democracies do not believe that the ends justify the means. In Warren’s case, our government’s end – to stop illegal entrants – may be legitimate, but the means (zero tolerance) aren’t.
Dictatorships hold that using horrific means to achieve noble ends is acceptable. After the Russian revolution, the Bolshevik government murdered 4 million Kulaks who would not give up their land to collectivization. The Bolsheviks were willing to employ whatever means necessary to achieve their end. So, there must be limits as to what is permissible. During Vietnam, the U.S. condoned “water-boarding” as a means of extracting information from the enemy. This led to a national debate as to whether torture was permissible. It flew in the face of everything this country stands for. It was argued that we were employing tactics more appropriate in autocratic regimes.
Once we abandon time-honored principles this nation has stood for, we are no better than our enemies. And there is the admonition of Jesus: “What is it worth to gain the whole world and yet lose your own soul.”
When Scott Warren’s trial ended in a hung jury, his attorney, Greg Kuykendall, issued a statement which puts the trial in a larger, historical context. He said, “…as a nation we have a long and consistent history of demonizing… those we fear. But just as deep and ever-present in America is a contingent of people – always a minority at first – who are resolute people of conscience. People who love, honor and respect all other people, regardless of race or status…”
Dr. Hal Sobel
Great Neck
