Scrambling for Answers

I am fascinated by the recent emergence of the Latino voice in the U.S. In Dallas, where I live and work, at least 350,000 people, mostly Latinos, marched through a portion of downtown in order to make a point. Was that point to enlighten citizens about the inadequacies and inequalities of U.S. immigration laws? Was the point simply to show the solidarity possible in the Latino community? Was the point to display the Latino community's economic power of available labor and potential purchasing?

I am equally fascinated by the non-Latino response to the emerging Latino voice and the associated march in Dallas. Some children of former immigrants (most of us are) put the "we were here first" frame on it; paranoid others put the "we need to keep our borders secure" frame on it; others put the consiliatory "we do need them to work for us" frame on it; "Americans" put the patriotic "go back to Mexico to wave the Mexican flag" on it. Still others embrace the Latino voice and recent actions with "they have every reason to march here, it's a free country."

The mixed bag of responses is equal to the mixed bag of potential purposes for the expression of the Latino voice. Attempting to interpret either groups' expressions is perilous, since doing so assumes motive and intent. And even if either or both sides' motives and intentions could be known, what would an individual or group do with that information?

Healthy human beings yearn to be free, to be individuals; healthy human beings also yearn to be part of a community or group. Identity comes through being an individual; identity also comes from being associated with a group. Some would say there is safety in numbers, there is risk in going it alone. Others would say there is joy in "doing my own thing" and that groups make you do things you'd rather not do. To whom or what do we pledge allegiance? How do we reconcile the continuous need and desire for freedom with the continuous need and desire for safety that pushes hard against freedom? How much do we give up or give in to the pressures of hardening the boundaries, both physical and cultural? Is safety the overriding value, or is challenge and adventure? Do we solve this issue by separating the parties (Latino from non-Latino) or by working together with others whose identity is different but whose main objective may be freedom and self-improvement, which syncs well with U.S. values and culture?

As this issue unfolds, I am considering what really matters to me and to the people with whom I associate. As a follower of Christ, as a husband and father, as a U.S. citizen, as a veteran, as a Dallasite, as a consumer --what is the transcending value or voice that can make sense of what is going on here? Is it that God is bringing people together in spite of man-made physical, psychological, or ethnic borders? Is it that mankind has the opportunity to bless itself through community development and further dialogue among those with cultural differences? Is it more important to establish firmer boundaries around who is a U.S. citizen and who is not? Is safety of U.S. citizens more important than the well-being of those to our south?

The paradox of this issue calls for us to attend to what is most important. Will we cower from tough choices and default to simple, reactionary, separatedness solutions that provide safety for some and limit the potential of others? Or will we recognize the complexities of a globalized world and work together to provide the blessings of acceptance and material wealth to as many as will allow sharing a conversation and a meal?

One of mankind's favorite pasttimes, it seems, is to attempt to define who's in and who's out, to create identity through safe sameness, e.g., we're the same, so let's stick together. I believe we're all in, and in it together. Since I have been blessed with the freedom to choose, I'll choose to remain myself while I work to bring us together, "us" being ALL of us.