Immigration Policy: Where’s the Love?

by Anne Dunlap 07-14-2009

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:34)

Let’s cut to the chase: What, exactly, is loving about the way we treat “the alien” among us – the immigrant, the foreigner, the non-native who has left her/his own land because of war, starvation, disease, and desperation, and travels to another in hopes of making a better life for her/his family (the meaning of the original Hebrew in this text)?

What, exactly, is loving about building steel walls across a borderline with the express intent to force migrants into the desert, sure that their deaths will be a deterent to future migration?

What, exactly, is loving about slashing water bottles and shooting water tanks left for migrants so that they won’t die of thirst?

What, exactly, is loving about exploiting immigrant labor by neglecting to pay workers, by not providing for workplace safety, by threatening workers with deportation if they try to organize?

What, exactly, is loving about police harassment of families who contribute to the well-being of our commmunities?

What, exactly, is loving about workplace and home ICE raids that terrorize hard-working communities, that rip families apart, disappearing partners and parents into a detention system that provides careless representation of immigrants at best, and no representation at worst? What is loving about leaving children behind with no support, wondering if they will ever see their parents again?

What, exactly, is loving about any of this?

This verse from Leviticus sums up the preponderance of biblical opinion regarding how faithful followers of God’s way are meant to treat the “alien:” just like yourself. The non-citizen should be treated just like the citizen, and be treated with love.

The ways in which God’s vision for the treatment of immigrants differs from current U.S. reality – both in terms of policy and in terms of anti-immigrant sentiment and violence – is vast and hardly in need of repeating here. For those of us who are trying to be faithful to God’s way, God’s vision of communities filled with justice, dignity, and love, the reminder to “love the ‘alien’ as you love yourself” should be the touchstone of our work in solidarity with the immigrant community. For the person of faith, the question is not “What is legal and expedient?” but “What is faithful?”

And the answer to that question is always love.

Let us pray for comprehensive immigration reform that embodies love for the immigrant.

Rev. Anne Dunlap is the pastor of Comunidad Liberación/Liberation Community in Aurora, Colorado, a bilingual, multi-cultural community based in the Christian tradition, striving to live faithfully, to embody God’s vision of the beloved community, and to joyfully resist oppression and injustice. Comunidad is a ministry of Mayflower UCC in Englewood, Colorado.

Categories: Immigration

WaveTossed

"What, exactly, is loving about building steel walls across a borderline with the express intent to force migrants into the desert, sure that their deaths will be a deterent to future migration?"

It's xenophobia and racism. Oh, sure it's couched in the language of "we're not prejudiced; it's just that they (whoever "they" is) must obey the law and come here legally." Of course whenever anyone mentions reforming the labyrinthine immigration laws and the huge backlog at INS where people have to wait for years to get legal papers: then suddenly it's "we don't want to give them (there is that "them" again) amnesty. Let them wait!"

But then we probe further and get stereotypes about how "illegal" immigrants (and also legal ones) just want to come to the U.S. to drain our welfare and Medicaid systems. No one even thinks about what it's like to work 12 hours or more a day receiving $3 or $4 a day without any benefits in sweatshop conditions -- without any recourse to complain because when it comes to deportation, the INS backlog seems to magically disappear and action is taken immediately.

This is human trafficking of the worst and most exploitive kind. It's easy to protest human trafficking when it occurs far across the sea. But when it's happening right here in our own backyard, in our own country, then suddenly people want to blame the victims of this human trafficking.

We need meaningful immigration reform and we need it now.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/10/29/anti-l...

24AheadDotCom

While I'm here:
1. The INS was dissolved over six years ago. Those who still refer to it aren't exactly keeping up with the times.
2. The goal should be to keep people from working in "sweatshop conditions", not promoting it and encouraging more of it.
3. The reason for the second is because, despite what "WaveTossed" says, we aren't enforcing our laws. If the far-left (Jim Wallis is apparently a former Marxist) would let us enforce our laws, there would be much less exploitation of workers. As it is, the far-left is encouraging exploitation of workers through their opposition to our laws.

naomilena

I would like to point out that these verses from Leviticus were addressed to a theocratic kingdom, in which God Himself set down a very large portion of the laws. While I do agree that immigrants, both legal and illegal, should be treated with love, the United States is not bound to follow these verses as it is a non-religious government.

This does not mean I think the government's actions are right. I do agree that immigration laws and policies need to be reformed. However, it seems a bit ridiculous to get all riled up at the U.S. government for not following these verses, when the government has never professed to be a Christian government.

Perhaps it might be better to examine how we as individuals can lovingly treat immigrants in our communities or how we can work together as a community of faith to get immigration laws modified to be more fair and humane. But this article only does what multiple other Sojourners immigration articles have done: lambasting the government (because that's safe) while failing to say anything new or provide actionable steps for the individual level.

24AheadDotCom

What is loving about leaving out water and distributing maps, encouraging people to cross the desert with many dying along the way? That's not too loving, now is it? In fact, it's downright sociopathic. It's akin to the local sociopath who cuts a hole in the fence around an abandoned neighborhood swimming pool. The non-sociopathic thing to do is to discourage people from crossing the desert. Those who leave out water and who try to undermine our laws are doing the opposite.

I've been covering this issue for years in literally thousands of posts. For all the facts about this matter that Sojourners won't tell you, subscribe to my feed.

WaveTossed

"The non-sociopathic thing to do is to discourage people from crossing the desert. Those who leave out water and who try to undermine our laws are doing the opposite."

The truly non-sociopathic thing to do is to streamline our immigration system so that people who legitimately want to work can get in legally without having to wait years and years. And then they wouldn't have to cross deserts.

24AheadDotCom

Do you know what this number is?

6,771,109,272

No matter how much we "streamlined" our system to match what the world wants, there would be hundreds of millions of people who'd want to come here. Your "policy" would be to constantly change our laws until no one wanted to come here. Your "policy" isn't a policy at all, it's just cheap boilerplate. And, it doesn't take into account the wishes of U.S. citizens. The fact that most wouldn't want to open the floodgates in order to let in all who want to come doesn't enter into your calculations, such as they are.

There are only two ways to prevent people from crossing the desert: have completely open borders, or strictly enforce our laws. Anything other than either of those will result in people trying to cross the desert.

If Anne Dunlap wants an effective and humanitarian solution, she should call on foreign governments to take care of their own people and she should call on the U.S. government to enforce our laws. Anything other than that just makes the situation worse for everyone (except of course for those who profit from this in some way).

BuckeyeDon

It's best not to feed this troll, WaveTossed. I know from experience.

Ngchen

Here's a radical idea I had last night: what if, we eliminated the immigration caps but charged a hefty (say $1000-$2000) per person immigration fee? The money can first be used to perform a background check to keep out terrorists and other truly undesirables, and the rest can go into the general fund. Those unable to afford the fee can continue to get in line, or maybe get a loan for the amount.

As for the walls and such, yes they're bad. But maybe the solution is for people to get in line and enter legally, just like razor wire surrounding prisons is bad for the would-be escapee. Shooting the cans of water is worse, since they don't discourage people from illegal entry, but only to kill them.

WaveTossed

"As for the walls and such, yes they're bad. But maybe the solution is for people to get in line and enter legally"

Would you be willing to accept immigration reform that would streamline this process? Many people are not willing to do this, which is why it hasn't happened even with the support of both Republican and Democratic presidents.

salmonista

Ngchen, the regular fees for a green card application are already about $1000, and that includes a background check. I don't think your plan will raise much in terms of revenue because the funds would go to paying government employees whose workload would increase exponentially if all immigration caps were lifted.

There are A LOT of people in the world who would like to move to the United States. That makes me proud of my country - other people think it's such a desirable place that they risk life and limb to get here! However, as other commenters have noted, it's just not possible for America to absorb everyone who wants to live here. For this reason, it seems we need to have some caps or limits on annual migration. Maybe immigration reform advocates don't want to acknowledge it, but saying "no" to some people is just the way it has to be. If we left ourselves open to a migration free for all, the laws of supply and demand would eventually balance things out, but that would be a pretty rough time along the way (e.g. The Tragedy of the Commons).

Ngchen

Thanks for pointing out the current $1000 or so fee. But I was thinking along the lines of charging PER PERSON, so as long as there were people paying the fee, the background checks and such can be proportionally scaled up with the added money taken in. If $1000 covers the background checks right now, then making the fee $2000 means that we'd get $1000 of revenue for every person getting a green card, if not more due to economies of scale.

Of course, coming up with that kind of money is by no means easy, especially for someone living in the third world. Which is exactly the point; only those who are prepared to work hard and have the brains to work smart and such would be allowed in. We want *quality* immigration from people who really want to come here, and as imperfect a measure as paying money is, it's probably as objective a measure as anything that we humans can come up with. The high price also would keep the country from being "flooded," since again not everyone will be able to afford the price.

nuclearferret

I guess all Christians are guilty of pick and choose literalism for the Bible. Leviticus 19:34? Good. Leviticus 19:27? How about Lev. 11:8? 19:19, 19:28?

It seems odd that should a citizen who would advocate for a mere copy of the Ten Commandments in a classroom or a Pledge that says "under God" would be condemned for wanting a theocracy, but that US government policy on immigration should be based on Leviticus. Nothing you present in this article speaks to state-run activity, but rather to the individual acts of the faithful.

weiwentg

The author does neglect to mention development policy. Undocumented immigrants usually come here to work because they are poor and there are no opportunities in their countries of origin. The US devotes much less of its GDP to foreign aid than many European countries; additionally, much of that aid comes with strings. A just development policy which helps Latin America to improve living and working conditions there will also reduce the need for many immigrants to come here.

To be clear, I do support immigration reform that allows a reasonable path to permanent residence and a reasonable guest worker program. The US's history with appropriating Mexican land by conquest in the 19th century means that there are many people in both countries with family ties across the border, and immigration policy must accommodate that. However, at the end of the day, immigration is not the sole solution to the world's problems. The troll above does have one point - not everyone in the world could physically fit in the OECD countries.

Ngchen suggested a $1-2000 fee on intending immigrants plus an otherwise open immigration policy. However, the filing fee to adjust one's status to permanent resident is already $1,010. Additionally, immigrants who are not lawyers themselves should probably hire legal counsel to do much of the paperwork for them, which incurs additional expense.

cgyw

christian louboutin
Christian Louboutin Evening