Harsh rhetoric isn't same as real debate

Politics has been defined as the art of the possible. This must involve compromise to reach a solution. Unfortunately, many issues in our society will not be solved due to the lack of compromise. One such issue is that of immigration.

One side contends illegal is illegal and nothing else counts. Illegal is defined in the dictionary as "not according to or authorized by law." The law is the supreme end to the question.

The other side points to the question of human rights and says the current law is inadequate. Their issue focuses on what is moral. Moral is defined as "conforming to a standard of right behavior."

What is moral and what is legal do not always perfectly match.

Article 1 of our Constitution recognized slavery. Slavery was legal until the 13th Amendment changed the law. Would anyone argue that legal slavery was moral?

The right to vote was denied many in our society by law. For example, it took the 19th amendment to give women the "right" to vote. Was this legal prohibition moral?

We have a legal definition of immigration passed by Congress. The critical question is whether it is moral. Does it properly incorporate the right behavior toward our fellow human beings? Many think not.

However, we have opposing camps that do not listen to each other. Without a dialogue, there can be no political solution. We must begin to listen to each other and arrive at a compromise.

I particularly urge the local faith communities to engage in this dialogue and bring about the possible rather than sit on the sideline and observe the hardened positions of the current battle lines.

The prevailing harsh rhetoric is not effective dialogue.

Royce M. Blackwell

Elgin