Is Democracy Threatened by Disease-carrying Immigrants?

I was recently privileged to receive an email discourse about how the Obama Administration has been hiding the truth from the American public regarding the connection between open immigration and the potential for epidemic spread of diseases hitherto under control here. For example, the article pointed out that the report of 900 new leprosy cases in the years 1996-2000 increased to 9000 for the three years 2002-2005--years in which Islamic jihadist terrorists have been infiltrating across our border.

Notice of our failure to take steps to protect our citizenry from the introduction of diseases with epidemic potential is an important warning.  All care should be taken to use medical knowledge and protective procedures to stamp out disease. But casting the message in anti-immigrant tone carries another threat.  We also need to protect the integrity of America reputed as the "hope for the world" as a trail blazer for democracy.   

      If we are to believe many of our aspiring politicians, we need to re-vision our "founding doctrines," for standard democracy is too inadequate for doing what needs to be done to assure our national strength.    Apparently we need to see ourselves not as a land of the free, but a land led by and for the healthy and physically whole; and we are to know that love, acceptance, respect and sacrifice are hindrances that divert us from securing liberty for those of us who have risen to the top--the notion that exclusivism is the way to protect what we have won for ourselves.  This revisionist kind of "democracy" mocks what underpinned the original "spirit of '76."

I sense that there is something fundamentally wrong with a desire to screen out our fellow humans who would join with us in our democratic celebration because they hail from countries with poor health histories.  This is not just a health issue, it is cousin to political narcissism.  If we would let the medical professionals deal with what is a valid concern, we will not be so vulnerable to the disease of zenophobia.  

Another shadow looming over instinctual protectionism is the temptation to lose track of Christian responsiveness. If we can't have it both ways--universally shared freedom, and medical insularity--should we choose the second at the expense of the first?  Jesus did not opt for this kind of exclusionary choice.  From my reading of the New Testament, I find no mention of Jesus recommending that all the leprosy colonies be emptied, the residents be deported, and all immigrants into Palestine be screened according to their country of origin.   As Jesus met the problem of endemic sickness, he stepped in after the fact in individual cases and provided instant healing, no matter who the subject was.  This healing ability is a rare gift, but quarantine is a poor excuse for not first turning to our medical professionals for dealing with the problem. Quarantine is a limited device that combines a narrow focus while weakening our commitment to Jefferson's "unalienable rights." Small mindedness and the odor of selfishness cling to desperate measures.  Throwing out the baby with the polluted water is only an act of desperation by those undeserving of carrying the Christian banner of American democracy.  Let's study for a better way to "prove ourselves worthy."

Do we think that Jesus had no better idea than quarantine for general welfare?  Was Jesus  committed only to relieving physical suffering one by one?  Did he have no advice for the cure of the sickness of social discrimination, no interest in the lucky ones sharing their favorable circumstances?  Did Jesus decide to ignore the problem of Roman occupation and Zionistic fervor because he thought we should handle such political matters by our own devices?  Do we really believe that the heart of the Gospel is inadequate for the realities of today's politics, that the challenges of a world of instant communication and jet speed travel are too overwhelming for the concept of "democracy" that calls for acceptance and the "lowering of our dukes" and reaching out with acceptance to our contiguous  neighbors?  Do we think Jesus' message needs updating?

In line with the wisdom of such thoughtless advice--to improve on the supposed limitation of Jesus' singlehanded medical help--we seemingly should let the unattended sick people ride out their illness in isolation--except where a few "healers" are available--while the rest of us more politically conscious folk deal with the overreaching task of barricading ourselves from the world.  If consistency is more important than first principles, then I must guess that applying immigrant exclusion as an answer to the threat of contagious disease also calls for us, as a precautionary measure, to deport all the poor citizens of our country who can't afford health insurance, so that if they get sick and can't pay for treatment, they won't spread their diseases here at home.

I'm holding my breath, expecting Donald Trump to pick up on this juicy idea.

Doug Good