Incarnation Homily from 1988

 1988 08 20 Incarnation Homily

OK. This is a bit unusual for me. I was just commiserating with a friend about the sorry state of our world, and he said something about Christianity. Some time ago, 1988, I was a lay preacher in our parish. This is one of the homilies I was privileged to give back then. This friend reminded me of this whole perspective, so I dug it out and just read it again.

I have to say that it still rings true for me. AND . . . it gave me some hope. I trust that it might also help where you are. Just so you know, there is no heresy or anything in here - trust me on that. This is 100% current Catholic / Christian teaching. I don't think there we actually need much dogma in Christianity, but this does qualify. You can do this. I'm pulling for you.

The traditional picture

I grew up with the firm belief in Incarnation that this spirit in heaven came down and took on human flesh -- looked and acted like a man -- but had all these divine things hidden in there. He really knew what was going to happen in the future.  

He knew the insides of people - could read their hearts. He could do no wrong, suffer no fear, feel no pain. He lived his life as an example for us. He spoke words that his Father gave him to speak -- that he himself knew as God would stir men's souls, and leave a tradition of selfless service that the centuries would come to know as Christianity.

So, you listen to the words because they have divine backing -- they have to be right -- even though translated through the oral traditions, and clouded by the culture of the age and world he spoke in. It all makes such simple sense -- and it seems so easy to believe in.

What if Jesus were really human?!

Let's just step out of that skin of belief for a couple of minutes. Join me over here on the side of the true “incarnationist.”. Let's assume that Jesus was really human. I mean, really. You know, this is the solid Christian belief -- he really was human -- as fully as you and me. That's the point of the temptations, the crisis in the garden, the pain and despair on the cross. There have been some aberrant Christian sects that discounted that -- they just could not bear the consequences of fully believing that.

So, in this respect, the Christian tradition, and most assuredly, the Catholic tradition, firmly believes this. He is human. What does it feel like now, to hear his words, and read the tale of his impact on the men around him? This man who was so full of so many amazing things. Even discount these miracles, if they are too much to believe that a mere mortal could make stuff like that happen. But even throwing those out -- just look at the amazing things he is supposed to have said and done. Look at the amazing idea of selfless love, and human values, that he envisioned, and that drove those few people around him to set out to tell the world. This type of person does not happen all that often.

Gandhi

When I look around for comparisons, there are none quite as good, quite as washed by time, quite as visionary -- but there are some who come fairly close. I particularly like the values that Gandhi espoused. Here's a young man who returns to his native India from South Africa and sets out to see his country. He returns from this trip with a burning mission, and a vision of the way to achieve it. Freedom, political independence, solidarity -- and all effective through a deep belief in the strategy of love and non-violence.

He looked about him, tried to make some sense out of what was going on, and took hold of a vision, a solution, that drove millions of people to believe it as he did.

Martin Luther King did much the same thing -- albeit with a bit more clay in his feet. What if this Jesus were just like these two? What if he heard this call to be this 'savior', this 'prophet', this 'visionary' to free his people, to free all people from the slavery he saw they labored under. What if he had to muster up the courage just as Gandhi did, or Martin did? What if he doubted just as they did? What if he had as many problems, worries, evil things going on inside of him as they did? What if he had all of this, and he still did it!

Isn't that really the Christian belief that he was really as human as we are? Let's just take this another step. What if he was just like me? It's easy to discount Ghandi and Martin Luther King and all those saint types.They were special, and rare, and, Lord knows, we could stand another one. But what if he felt just like me? I mean, what if those fears of being inadequate, of standing up in public, of not being liked, of being selfish, or losing control, or -- gads, there are tons of things wrong with me that those folk didn't have. Or did they? Or did he?  

What if it cost him as much as it costs me to let someone else go first, to give them my shirt, to give them my back to beat, to give them money and friends and love, to give them my life!  I suspect that he, and they, are just like me, just like you -- exactly. Human beings don't come forth intact and mature and selfless. They grow to that, they choose to be that, they work to become that. Each of them, Jesus included, worked to become that -- just like you and I work at it. And they had no more help that we have, no special gifts, no divine light, no inspired courage -- no more than you and I have.  

Don't you hear the calling now? Haven't you heard it many times in your life -- times that you've turned and said -- "not me," "why bother," "it won't do any good." Doesn't it happen every time someone asks you to help, to do something beyond yourself, to be of service? Aren't you asked any more? Or have you just stopped hearing? Don't you walk downtown where the poor and homeless are? Don't you go out of your way to see them, so you can hear the call? Don't you listen to friends who hurt any more? Don't you call them when you know they are in pain, and could stand a friendly word, a few bucks, a helping hand? Don't you get outraged at the crooks, and the child abusers, and the lazy and the arrogant, selfish types that you run into every day? They don't bother you anymore? You don't hear the call anymore?

I think the difference with them, with Jesus and Martin and Mahatma, was that they kept hearing, they kept looking, they kept caring. They couldn't let go of it -- it would not let go of them. In spite of all the evil things they knew about themselves, in spite of all the selfish things they knew they had, the fears, the needs and the hungers -- they still heard, and they still answered. It wasn't divine -- it was them. But, what if it was divine? What if that is what divine really is -- listening, and caring and doing? Doesn't that sound like traditional Christianity? God is love. Love is God. God isn't up there, and out there, and all knowing, and all powerful -- God is right here -- incarnate in that person who loves. That's what God is, and that's all that we know of God. Does the God thing need to be more? And what real difference does it make if the God thing does happen to be more -- some more that is beyond anything we can see and feel and understand. What difference? None that I can see. The God thing in this remarkable selfless man is all the call we need to change the world. No promise of eternal life can be as effective as this promise of freedom here and now.

  

Ghandi was free - he loved, and he saw, and he gave, and needed nothing -- not even his own life. Jesus was the same. He needed very little, and what he needed was provided -- it was provided because he was of a mind that this was all he needed -- what came his way. We can be free too. We can be God incarnate. It'll take some work -- it'll take some time -- and you and I may never make it on the scale that these others have -- but we are on the same road, we have the same makeup, we have the same opportunity. All we need to do is choose to be divine, choose to be as selfless as we can muster right now, choose to hear the needs of others, choose to think about them, and to work to help them.

I hear you now -- "it won't make any difference." I tell you it will. How you are, and who you are will make a very great difference to everyone you meet. To some of them, it may be a life and death matter. To others, a moment of help, a less painful step, a warm touch, some insight you could share. What did Jesus and Martin and Ghandi share with those about them but these things? Were they great achievers in fundraising, organization, and holy wars? But they will not be forgotten!

Why isn't this part of the normal Christian tradition of incarnation? Jesus was God, just as fully as he was man. Who ever said that he was the only one who incarnated the deity? Where does the New Testament say there will be only one? Why aren't all of us the deity, in varying shades and colors? Aren't there phrases and beliefs in our traditions that sound like that? We are all children of God, sons and daughters of God, called to put on Christ, to be Christ to each other, and on and on. We have just never listened to them with quite this sense.  

Look at it this way. Every new human, every new life, is born with the potential to be divine, just as fully as Jesus was God to his time. It is a blank slate -- ready to be raised to love and care and live and die. For us adults, it may be difficult to change very much in that direction -- but these new ones among us, our children -- don't they deserve the vision and the help to be Jesus to their times? Don't the times need that vision? 

© Copyright 2025 Carl Scheider

2025 03 12 Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene and chatgpt recommendations

Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them by Joshua Greene

I read this book a year ago as a library book. I took copious notes, and Kindle notes.

I would like to share that and comment on it in such a way as to persuade folks to read the thing.

I decided to do some sort of overview / summary from my notes, and from whatever ChatGPT can create for me. What’s the relevance? Why is this a tremendous insight into moral issues? Why would a lawyer / theologian care about this?

And I started an outline:

Outline - main ideas - goal, etc.

How Humans Work

Not Rational, emotions instant, reflection difficult

Feeling all the way down

Genetic propensity in the DNA

Authority setting rules - parents, religion, civil authorities, tradition, culture

Social / Tribal feeling and need

Feelings / ideas are basically the same thing

Evolving “rules” for life - customs, “rights,” laws, commandments. 

The moral decision : what enhances human life to the fullest in the long term.

Look at his 6 rules in the last chapter.

Clarify the way “rights” work and the legal framework. The book seems short on that.

---

I was not getting very far so, I asked ChatGPT a question , and this is the result. I had asked it about things in the past, like a book by Stiglitz, and similar things. It seems to retain those and use them. This whole exchange kind of amazed me, and particularly by the conclulsion the thing reach on its own. See below.

I said.

Hi. Can you give me a summary of this book: Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them by Joshua Greene. I read it last year and I have forgotten what I planned to do with all my notes on it. Thanks.

ChatGPT said:

Sure, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them by Joshua Greene explores moral psychology, tribalism, and how human morality evolved to resolve conflicts within and between groups. Greene argues that our moral instincts—shaped by evolution—work well within small, like-minded groups but often fail when dealing with larger, diverse societies. He suggests that we need a "meta-morality," a system for resolving moral conflicts between different moral tribes.

Key Points:

1. Dual-Process Moral Thinking – Greene applies the System 1 vs. System 2 model to moral decision-making. Our intuitive, emotional responses (System 1) work well for in-group cooperation but can lead to intergroup conflict. Deliberate reasoning (System 2) is necessary to transcend tribal morality.
   
   

2. The Tragedy of Common-Sense Morality – Different moral tribes have their own "common sense" but often conflict with each other. Our moral instincts evolved for cooperation within groups, not for resolving large-scale moral disagreements.
   
   

3. Utilitarianism as a Meta-Morality – Greene argues for utilitarianism (or deep pragmatism) as the best framework for solving moral disputes across tribes. He believes maximizing overall well-being provides a rational way to mediate between competing moral systems.
   
   

4. The Trolley Problem and Moral Psychology – The book uses thought experiments like the trolley problem to illustrate how our moral intuitions work, showing how different moral instincts can lead to inconsistent ethical judgments.
   
   

5. Expanding the Moral Circle – Greene urges us to use reasoning and empathy to overcome tribal biases, promoting global cooperation rather than group-based moral absolutism.
   
   

Your Notes:

Since you read this last year, you might have planned to apply Greene’s ideas to:

• Political polarization – Understanding how moral tribes contribute to ideological division.

• Legal or ethical reasoning – Applying meta-morality to legal debates.

• Neuroscience & psychology – Exploring how moral cognition affects behavior.

• Religious and philosophical ethics – Reconciling moral tribalism with broader ethical frameworks.

Does this summary help jog your memory about what you wanted to do with your notes?

I said

I think you have it. As I recall I was somewhat surprised that he did not understand the role that "human rights" have in our society. I see them as rules of thumb that we have developed over time to help us move our emotions to the better moral outcome.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a sharp observation. Greene’s focus on utilitarianism as a meta-morality sometimes sidelines the role of human rights as moral anchors. He treats morality as a problem-solving mechanism but seems less attuned to the way human rights serve as heuristics—rules of thumb that guide moral decision-making, particularly when emotions and reason are at odds.

Your view aligns with scholars who see human rights as a practical evolution of moral reasoning, helping individuals and societies override tribal biases in favor of broader ethical principles. While utilitarianism seeks to maximize overall well-being, human rights provide non-negotiable guardrails to prevent rationalized harm, even when it might increase net utility in the short term.

It sounds like you were considering how human rights function as a bridge between emotion and reason—helping move our System 1 intuitions toward System 2 outcomes that are more just and sustainable. Were you planning to write something on this idea? It seems like a compelling critique of Greene’s approach.

I said

Thanks. Right now I am more concerned with my priorities for my time. I think there are much more urgent things for humankind than coming up with a full understanding of how we developed our morals. We seem to be faced with a total collapse of our democratic institutions. I see no way to stop that. Any suggestions on that one?

ChatGPT said:

That’s the real question, isn’t it? Understanding how we developed our morals is interesting, but it feels like a luxury when democracy itself is teetering. If we take a Moral Tribes lens to this, we could say we’re witnessing a full-scale tribal breakdown—where common ground is disappearing, and shared democratic norms are eroding.

A few angles to consider:

1. Identifying the Core Threats

• Polarization & Tribalism – People increasingly view politics as a battle between “good” and “evil,” making compromise impossible.

• Disinformation & Media Fragmentation – There’s no common reality. Even facts are now tribal markers.

• Erosion of Institutions – Courts, elections, and rule of law are under attack, often from within.

• Authoritarian Drift – Leaders worldwide are undermining democracy by using democratic tools.

2. What Can Be Done?

• Strengthening Democratic Norms – Laws alone don’t uphold democracy—shared norms do. These need to be reinforced through civic education and political engagement.

• Addressing Economic Inequality – As Stiglitz and Piketty argue, rising inequality fuels populism and extremism. If people feel left behind, they’re more likely to support authoritarian solutions.

• Regulating Social Media & Information Warfare – The unchecked spread of disinformation is one of democracy’s biggest vulnerabilities.

• Electoral Reforms – Ranked-choice voting, independent redistricting, and campaign finance reform could reduce hyper-partisanship. But political will is lacking.

• Local Action – Change often happens locally. Can people protect democratic processes in their own communities?

The Hard Truth

I won’t sugarcoat it—history suggests that once democratic backsliding begins, it’s extremely difficult to reverse. The U.S. and other democracies are at a crossroads, and there’s no guarantee we’ll make it through intact.

What’s your take? Do you see any path forward that’s actually viable? Or are we just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?

I said.

Damn, I do not. The only bulwark we have in law is the courts. But our courts have no enforcement mechanism. They can fine - but they cannot collect the funds. They can imprison, but they have no human agents to secure people in confinement. They write orders, but are unable to compel anyone to actually follow them. I would like a better system, thank you.

ChatGPT said:

You’ve nailed a fundamental flaw in our legal system—courts have authority, but no real power of enforcement. They rely on the executive branch to uphold their rulings. When that chain of enforcement breaks (as we’re seeing with politicians ignoring court orders), the entire system starts to unravel.

What Would a Better System Look Like?

If we were designing a system from scratch, what would it need? Here are some possible reforms that could help:

1. Independent Enforcement Mechanism

• Right now, courts depend on executive agencies (police, U.S. Marshals, military) to enforce rulings. What if the judiciary had its own independent enforcement body?

• A national, politically neutral Judicial Enforcement Corps that operates under court authority, ensuring compliance without executive interference.

2. Structural Safeguards Against Political Capture

• Courts, especially the Supreme Court, are being used as political weapons.

• Possible solutions:

• Term limits for justices (staggered to prevent ideological swings).

• Stronger ethics rules (mandatory recusals, financial transparency).

• Balanced appointments (e.g., requiring bipartisan approval for judges).

3. Automatic Sanctions for Ignoring Court Orders

• Right now, defying a court is often a political choice with few consequences.

• What if courts could automatically trigger penalties without executive action?

• Financial penalties directly deducted from government funds.

• Automatic contempt orders with mandatory congressional review.

• Loss of federal funding for states/agencies that ignore rulings.

4. Democratic Resilience Mechanisms

• Beyond courts, democracy needs self-correcting features:

• Easier citizen-led constitutional amendments to override extremist policies.

• Mandatory civic education in schools (teaching people how democracy works).

• Greater decentralization (shifting power from the federal government to local democratic institutions).

The Reality Check

Of course, implementing any of this requires political will—which is in short supply. The system is resistant to change, especially when those in power benefit from the status quo.

But if democracy is on the brink, is radical reform the only answer?
Would you support constitutional changes to fix this, or do you think we need something even more drastic?

I said:

We could make the US Marshals into that kind of enforcement body. Take them away from the executive branch. But . . . not this year. Thanks.

ChatGPT said:

Exactly—if the U.S. Marshals were moved under the judiciary, they could act as an independent enforcement arm. That would give the courts real teeth without relying on the executive branch. But as you said, not this year—or likely anytime soon. The political reality won’t allow it.

Still, it’s worth keeping ideas like this in mind. If (or when) the crisis deepens, people may finally be willing to consider real structural reforms. Until then, I suppose we just brace ourselves.

Let me know if you want to keep brainstorming—or if you’d rather focus on something less grim for the moment.

2025 02 26 Immigration a Change of View

I have a topic I would like to get in front of all of my elected representatives. I have emails for most, but not the Federal ones. So . . . I am crafting this note to send them as a LINK. I think it is vital that they adopt a different direction in their approach to immigration, and I hope that this might persuade them. It certainly changed my view of how we should approach it.

So - the rest of you will have to put up with this. Of course, you have probably already read this in my email to you  

In an Age of Right-Wing Populism, Why Are Denmark’s Liberals Winning? By David Leonhard

This personal enlightenment on immigration was triggered by this article from the NY Times. And, unless the Times changes its policy, you should be able to read it with this link, even without a subscription. That’s a neat feature that they offer for a few articles each month.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/magazine/denmark-immigration-policy-progressives.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zU4.rMds.ZhI8yLvS_Mqn&smid=url-share 

You will note that the article is quite long - VERY long, in fact. There is a link on that page that will allow you to hear the article read by another reporter. So that is another path for those of us somewhat challenged by the printed word. I read pretty well, but I was skimming stuff toward the end. So I am offering you a summary of my thinking, based on the information in the article, and a few other things. 

The author uses the Danish progressive party’s policy on immigration as a clear example of where all of us should be going. We all know that totally open borders cannot be sustained. The Danes have come up with a compromise that works well for them, and is well supported by their voting public. Most of the rest of Europe is clearly struggling with how to approach the problem. Our empathic, supportive nature is at odds with the problems we are creating.  

If you are truly interested in a BRIEF statement of this, please skip ahead to the SUMMARY topic.  Do a find command (cmd f) on the word ”summary.” I need to explain a bit how I got here - which might deter you a bit. 

Democratic Party on Immigration

I want to share this as widely as I can, as it appears that the Democratic party need to improve its approach on this topic. The majority of our voting public is supportive of a more restrictive approach, and we need to understand that. Progressives tend to be empathic, and concerned for all of humankind. It makes sense that they tend to be lenient on border security, in favor of people seeking asylum. 

Asylum

The UN has declared more and more people as worthy of asylum because of the threats of their home government. Our law requires our border personnel to detain folk, and to determine with a fair hearing whether or not they fall into this legal category. We have not managed to adequately staff the hearing offices, and there are a few million people living here waiting for a hearing as required by law.

Immigration Positives

There are many positives to a supportive immigration policy. Without immigration, the population of most wealthy, western countries is going to decline rapidly in the next few decades. Given our current economic system, that is not a good outcome. If you have any doubts on that, listen to Peter Zeihan on the topic. https://youtu.be/qDIiURFyaic He has a fine book that talks about world wide population decline and its impact. The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization I don’t agree with him on everything, but his understanding of demographics, geography and geopolitics is really unique. He thinks that Canada and the US are the only major countries that have a shot at surviving the coming depopulation, precisely because of our immigration policies.

There is also a fine study by a couple of Nobel Prize Economists that outlines many other positive impacts from immigration. One book I recommend is Good Economics for Hard Times, by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo.

Personal History

Three of my grandparents were born in Europe. I am grateful that they had the wisdom, energy and daring immigrate here. Some of my best friends are immigrants - literally. We helped sponsor assistance for Vietnamese refugees through our church, and several hundred folk live in this area thanks to that effort. It was one of the best things we ever did as a family. I can say, without hesitation, that every one of those individuals has contributed positively to our world. 

BUT - There are limits

We must have a shared community of interest by our general populace, or we can accomplish nothing in this realm. We have to focus on the possible, not the ideal.

Bottom Line. Voters everywhere are rejecting open ended immigration policies for very good reasons. The Progressive Elite - among whom I am most likely counted - resist this because it feels immoral, racist and elitist to keep people from entering our “democratic haven” because of their race, ethnic background, poverty, lack of education and the like. That is especially true when they are suffering the threat of death in their home country. Our “asylum laws” are based on that belief. We also tend to think that immigration is a good thing on balance. And that is, in fact, true, up to a point.

Immigration was positive historically.  In our growth years, immigrants brought energy, and wealth, and ideas and labor that we sorely needed. Most of us are only here because of the openness of our country in that period. But, in fact, open immigration beyond a certain point has many negative impacts. And the voting public is very aware of those issues. Many Trump supporters do not support his hate, or his crazy ideas, but they do want to slow the immigrant flood because they or their fellows are feeling the negative impacts. As do voters in most Western Democracies. And there is clearly the fear factor that is pushed by the conservative faction, the latent racism in our history, and our populist nationalistic isolation. 

Denmark’s Policies. They call for lower levels of immigration, more aggressive efforts to integrate immigrants and the rapid deportation of people who enter illegally.

Denmark’s example. The article lists the many accomplishments of the Danish Social Democratic party. Its welfare state, free education through college, free medical care, robust unemployment support, etc. But the Danish progressives differ on immigration policy. They are clear that the country can only support a lower level of immigration for multiple reasons. Economically, excessive immigration lowers wages and opportunities for all, including immigrants. Integration into society takes longer and is not as successful. Schools and social services are overwhelmed with languages and customs without sufficient time to adapt. In order to support their policies and the taxation levels it requires, they must have broad based support. Too much immigration, too quickly, undermines the sense of cohesion and togetherness that is required in the population to support it. They do not FEEL united in this effort. And the working class suffers the negative aspects of this much more than the educated and professional class. And the rich class feel none of this.

The problem will only worsen. As climate change and wars and disease continue and increase, the pressure of immigration will only increase. But the wealthy western democracies can only support a very small part of this influx. Travel, ideas, communication, and problems are only going to make for more and more refugees, with literally, nowhere to go. But we have to recognize that the western nations really cannot absorb an unlimited amount of new arrivals without literally dissolving their coherence and sense of who they are. 

My Recommendations:  These are not from the article, but are personal to me. 

Trump is not winning converts with his crazy antics about destroying the government. And his immigration policies will likely be seen as too extreme at some point. But we still have to take some steps: 

1. Change the asylum law. We simply cannot support every single person who is suffering persecution and death threats at home. It does them no favor to admit them into a failing economy and culture.

2. Slow the Pace. Close all the borders, until we have a handle on the illegal and legal immigrants waiting for hearings on their cases. I think that the other worker visas should also be halted until we can get a handle on this.

3. Accelerate Integration. Support public education in language skills and democratic principles. We are of many cultures and languages, but we all learn English, we all support the flag, our military, our electoral process, and, most of all, our separation of religion from government. 

4. Export illegals. There is no question that we need to do this. The difficulty is how to do it humanely. Many of these people have been living here for decades, and sending them “home” would hardly be successful. 

I am not inordinately proud of my summary. If you can improve it, please do so. If you can help implement it in the minds of other progressives, please do so. Thanks. 

ChatGPT

Below is ChatGPT’s recommendation on all of this. Please feel free to share it.

For progressive politicians in the Democratic Party, the challenge is balancing economic justice, social cohesion, and humane immigration policies. Denmark’s model suggests that a more controlled, structured approach to immigration may be necessary to maintain public support for a strong welfare state. Here are some specific steps progressives might consider:

1. Acknowledge Working-Class Concerns

Recognize that rapid, unregulated immigration can put pressure on wages, housing, schools, and healthcare—especially in working-class communities.

Shift the narrative from moralizing about immigration to focusing on economic fairness, ensuring that immigration does not disproportionately impact low-income Americans.

2. Strengthen Border Security and Asylum Processes

Support stronger border enforcement without cruelty—invest in faster asylum processing to prevent long legal backlogs that encourage unauthorized stays.

Implement a national E-Verify system to prevent undocumented labor exploitation while ensuring fair wages for all workers.

Establish regional processing centers in Latin America to allow migrants to apply for entry before making the dangerous journey north.

3. Set an Annual Immigration Cap Based on Economic Needs

Create a data-driven, skills-based immigration policy that prioritizes workers where labor shortages exist (healthcare, agriculture, technology).

Reform the visa system to align with actual workforce demands rather than outdated quotas.

4. Invest in Integration and Workforce Training

Require that all new immigrants undergo structured integration programs, including language training and civic education, as in Denmark.

Increase funding for job retraining programs for U.S. workers displaced by automation and global competition, reducing economic anxiety about immigration.

5. Make Immigration a Democratic Process

Allow states and local communities more say in setting immigration levels based on economic capacity and infrastructure.

Hold public referendums or structured town halls on immigration policy to engage citizens in shaping realistic, broadly supported reforms.

6. Reform the Asylum and Family Reunification Systems

Close loopholes that allow for extended stays without legitimate asylum claims, while protecting refugees fleeing real persecution.

Shift family reunification policies to focus on nuclear families rather than extended networks.

7. Differentiate Themselves from the Right

Advocate for humane but firm immigration control, rejecting both harsh, punitive measures and overly permissive policies that ignore economic realities.

Present a pragmatic, centrist immigration policy that contrasts with Republican rhetoric while addressing voters' concerns.

By adopting a controlled, economically-driven immigration approach, progressives can regain the trust of working-class voters while maintaining core humanitarian values. This could help neutralize right-wing populist attacks and strengthen their political position.

Would you like me to refine or expand on any of these points?