RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Evangelicals on the Border: Steps Forward and Back for Immigrants

by Maryada Vallet 04-21-2010

From the borderlands perspective, it has been a week of momentous steps both forward and back for immigrants. We applaud the evangelical leadership that recently vocalized the importance of immigration reform this year, with backing from the National Association of Evangelicals, World Relief, and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, among others.

In Arizona, we are shocked and devastated by the recent state and federal policies. The legislation SB1070 creates an aggressive Arizona immigration enforcement system. This is not the answer to the slow and desperately needed federal reform. As Christians, we know from the deepest roots of our faith that we must care for our neighbors, not turn our backs on them — nor turn them in.

Compounding the shock came one of the biggest enforcement raids in Arizona history. As the news reported, eight hundred agents descended upon Nogales, Phoenix, and cities in between, to allegedly bust a smuggling ring, but this was not entirely true on the ground. The scene was horrific. Agents with full masks, large gun, and bullet-proof vests pounded on apartment doors at early morning hours, they raided city buses and pulled off students, and they set up “checkpoints” on major roads through immigrant neighborhoods. Nearby, 4-year-olds in a pre-K class cried for fear that their parents might not come to pick them up. These strategies of massive detainment and deportation directly conflict with support of family values, and we see it ripping away at the fabric of our community.

At this moment, Jesus calls us to walk with the immigrant, quite literally, in accompaniment to school or the grocery store, when our neighbors could be considered “suspicious” and removed. Fear-based legislation and the panic in response entrap all of us. As communities of faith and courage, we plan to respond to this past week with even more strength, reminding one another of the incarnate message, Fear not, I am with you.

Maryada Vallet works with No More Deaths, a humanitarian initiative on the U.S.-Mexico border that promotes faith-based principles for immigration reform.

Categories: Immigration
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • WaveTossed
    The fact is that Ron Paul represents a Texas district. It would likely be political suicide for him to support the classical libertarian view on immigration.

    However, it would be nice if he would focus on getting rid of the public welfare state rather than on focusing on blocking the free labor trade between immigrants and potential employers.
  • I agree with you. I suspect he is politically constrained in what he can say. Also, it gives him a chance to throw in a dig at the welfare system. The position he publicly articulates was formulated by Milton Friedman and goes something like, "You can't have both open immigration and a welfare state."
    NS
  • WaveTossed
    "Ron Paul always qualifies his opposition to liberalizing immigration by pointing out the additional expense immigrant populations would impose on the welfare system."

    Unforunately, Ron Paul has fallen prey to one of the most pernicious myths about immigration -- that immigrants, particularly low-skilled immigrants will burden our welfare system. Studies have shown that immigrants are far LESS likely to use our welfare system. They usually contribute more to tax revenue by working (if they are allowed to work legally and pay taxes) than they take away by use of welfare and school resources.

    The Cato Institute has some very sensible views about immigration and they provide facts to back them up. I wish that Dr. Paul would read and study some of these reports.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2547
  • Ron Paul always qualifies his opposition to liberalizing immigration by pointing out the additional expense immigrant populations would impose on the welfare system. He proposes reducing the size of welfare, and then liberalizing immigration.
    I take the opposite tack, strategically.
    I hope open immigration does impose costs on welfare which then leads to repeal.
    Nathanael Snow
  • WaveTossed
    "Compounding the shock came one of the biggest enforcement raids in Arizona history. As the news reported, eight hundred agents descended upon Nogales, Phoenix, and cities in between, to allegedly bust a smuggling ring, but this was not entirely true on the ground. The scene was horrific. Agents with full masks, large gun, and bullet-proof vests pounded on apartment doors at early morning hours, they raided city buses and pulled off students, and they set up 'checkpoints' on major roads through immigrant neighborhoods. Nearby, 4-year-olds in a pre-K class cried for fear that their parents might not come to pick them up. These strategies of massive detainment and deportation directly conflict with support of family values, and we see it ripping away at the fabric of our community."

    So much for smaller government (eyes roll).

    So where are the Tea Party protests against this sort of big government action? From what I've read about their views, they probably were cheering on the show of huge government force. This is one area where I vehemently disagree with Ron Paul; he tends to support limiting immigration, though I have doubts that he would support such draconian measures as in the Arizona law.

    I support the classical libertarian view on immigration. Immigration is good for our country, good for our economy. Using government force to impede immigration, setting up quotas, employing huge backlogs to prevent people from immigrating legally: these are all interferences with the free trade of labor.
  • Suppose illegal immigrants were not to be tracked by the government and sent home. Suppose they were all granted full citizenship. What would happen next?
    Suppose there were more free and open competition for jobs in America, with applicants from around the world challenging each of us for our positions, what then?
    Suppose further that social welfare entitlements were guaranteed to immigrants on day 1 of their presence on US soil, including access to public education, emergency services, disability insurance, food stamps, etc.
    Finally, assume that the most of the immigrants have low job skills and little formal education.
    What specifically is the Christian position for immigration reform, based on Biblical principles, with a full understanding of the social and economic consequences of that position?
    Sojourners has yet to generate or publicize their analysis. So far they have only made symbolic statements.
    This leads me to believe that they don't actually believe immigration reform is politically feasible at this time. They are making cheap symbolic talk signaling solidarity and tugging at the heart-strings of their followers.
    Unless Sojourners starts to be more specific, direct, and public - that is UP FRONT in every statement on the issue - what their actual preferred policy position is, I can't help but interpret their statements as anything but symbolic.
    I, for one, advocate open borders and full citizenship status for all immigrants from anywhere provided they are not guilty of crimes against others as decided by a fair and impartial jury of their peers.
    Will Jim Wallis or anyone else at Sojourners dare to make such a direct statement?
    No. Why not? Because they have to make strategic decisions about how to present consensus among a broad coalition, and this will require multiple levels of compromise, precluding them from taking any definable position for the time being.
    What was it Burke said about enabling the conditions "necessary for the triumph of evil"?
    Shame on you Sojourners, shame on you Jim Wallis. Take courage and declare what justice requires of this situation or shut up. You are accountable to an audience of One.
    Nathanael Snow
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008