To Love God is to Love Our Immigrant Neighbors

NO ANSWER? REALLY, JUSTIN?

This is a perfect example of why Liberalism (Christian or otherwise) ultimately fails - it lacks intellectualism.

"no scripture tells us not to enforce laws" How do you square that with some of Jesus's comments (e.g. in Mark 2-3 and Matthew 12), which suggest, at the very least, that laws can be seriously misapplied?

LinkedIn

------------

This is a reminder that on June 7, Charles Kiker sent you an invitation to become part of his or her professional network at LinkedIn.

Follow this link to accept Charles Kiker's invitation.

https://www.linkedin.com/e/ykf...

Signing up is free and takes less than a minute.

"If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." Luke 6:29

Does this passage mean that the laws our nation should not penalize someone who strikes another or that theft should not be prevented by law enforcement?

This is the essential problem with so many of the blog posts on immigration reform written here. The authors point out legitimate problems with our current immigration system and point to passages in the Bible that discuss kindness to strangers and immigrants. But none of them ever say what their ideal immigration system would look like? Would immigrants be subject to any immigration laws at all? Would anyone who breaks an immigration law face any consequences? Do the authors support unlimited immigration? We can all point to the easy cases and say "that's wrong", but if we're going to apply Biblical admonitions to our laws, where do we stop and start? Which ones do we apply and which ones shouldn't we take literally?

Justin, thank you for your thoughtful response to Sam. These are tough issues, which have been complicated all the more by the dual message sent by our government. On the one hand the government has laws and rules on the books which prohibit illegal hiring and overstaying one's visa. On the other hand enforcement has been dismal (for a number of reasons). Finally, so-called "free trade" has displaced a huge number (MILLIONS) of workers through no fault of their own-- they are merely trying to eek out a living and provide for their families.

I am with you on applying Christian principles to this issue. But I hope that if reform does come, it offers an equitable (earned adjustment) and effective system, so that we are not facing this mess again in another 20 years.

I wholeheartedly agree with Sam's comments. As a Christian, I find myself agreeing with your general interpretation of scripture but completely puzzled by what policy "implications" you advocate.

A similar example would be a "living wage." Does God exhort us to help the poor? Certainly; we can quote a number of passages that tell us helping the poor is a good thing. Does that mean we should lobby the government to increase the minimum wage to $8 or $10? I don't think so; there is a difference in helping the poor and lobbying the government for a marginal change in the wage rate that does nothing to achieve that goal. One does not necessarily imply the other.

I looked at your website to try and understand what policy implications arise from your intrepretation of the bible and besides "amnesty" for existing immigrants- I truthfully cannot tell, and that it is a problem. Because there is a deeper problem in your logic.

An infinite number of policy levers, except one that predicates murder and suffering, could be seen as achieving the biblical values you advocate on the page. Thus, if you want to legislate morality; that's fine, but know that the Gospel doesn't necessarily only support your position or policy prescription.

Is complete open immigration desirable, or is limited immigration the way to go? I don't think the Gospel gives us any evidence to go either way on these critical issues, and as such, you should be careful using it as evidence to support only your opinions when an infinite permutation of policies could achieve the same goal. In the future be more specific about what policies will emanate from meaningless phrases such as "an equitable and effective system."

You are correct. Let me refer people once more to the Cato Institute.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10438

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10650

There are other articles here:

http://www.cato.org/immigration

I would usually agree with fundamentalist but would probably point out Milton Friedman's exception in the case of immigration: for a country that offers social warfare benefits (particularly now with health care), it makes no sense to have an "open border policy." While I agree that after 9-11 our immigration policy has been too strict, immigration should (primarily) be seen as a tool to help the afflicted and promote greater economic development in the country.

Hey Sam,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Let me first say that I agree that we don't cover all our bases in the blog post. One contributing factor is the word limit! And another part of the problem is that we're addressing a particular audience who sometimes seem to forget to transfer their biblical values and principles to issues that are labeled "political," e.g. immigration. So, for instance, if I were to rewrite this blog with you in mind, now that I know where you stand, I would gear it more practically.

Second, I think there's a difference between making biblical injunctions or Jesus' exhortations into legislation--legislating morality or right behavior, which I don't think we're supposed to do--and using biblical principles, such as love of neighbor or welcome of stranger, as our framework in which we view our legal system and the changes that we might advocate for. You can find more about what we stand for over at the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform website. Let us know what you think!

Justin,

As a Moody Theological Seminary student myself (I graduate when my thesis is complete) I agree with Sam's premise: no scripture tells us not to enforce laws. Those laws extend to our borders. The Old Testament DOES provide instructions on dealing with foreigners, but I am sure you realize that those laws pertain to a culture where foreigners had no rights whatsoever. Furthermore, those OT laws were NOT dealing with ILLEGAL immigrants.

I disagree with your statement that we are not to "legislat(e) morality or right behavior" unless you can provide me with a law that does NOT do just that. EVERY law provides a minimum moral standard and legislates what our society accepts as "right behavior".

Frankly, I don't know of any true Christian (or non-Christians) that would not accept or welcome someone here legally. I find it flattering they want to be here and their passion for our country and culture is unmatched.

I wholeheartedly agree with Sam's comments. As a Christian, I find myself agreeing with your general interpretation of scripture but completely puzzled by what policy "implications" you advocate.

A similar example would be a "living wage." Does God exhort us to help the poor? Certainly; we can quote a number of passages that tell us helping the poor is a good thing. Does that mean we should lobby the government to increase the minimum wage to $8 or $10? I don't think so; there is a difference in helping the poor and lobbying the government for a marginal change in the wage rate that does nothing to achieve that goal. One does not necessarily imply the other.

I looked at your website to try and understand what policy implications arise from your intrepretation of the bible and besides "amnesty" for existing immigrants- I truthfully cannot tell, and that it is a problem. Because there is a deeper problem in your logic.

An infinite number of policy levers, except one that predicates murder and suffering, could be seen as achieving the biblical values you advocate on the page. Thus, if you want to legislate morality; that's fine, but know that the Gospel doesn't necessarily only support your position or policy prescription.

Is complete open immigration desirable, or is limited immigration the way to go? I don't think the Gospel gives us any evidence to go either way on these critical issues, and as such, you should be careful using it as evidence to support only your opinions when an infinite permutation of policies could achieve the same goal. In the future be more specific about what policies will emanate from meaningless phrases such as "an equitable and effective system."

I am an advocate of separation of church and state. That does not mean that I cannot advocate for changes in government policy regarding immigration, foreign or domestic policy. I cannot impose my views; I can voice my views, and will continue to do so.

Allow me to present the libertarian view on immigration. It has little to do with the Bible. But if you went back in time, possibly as early at the turn of the last century, and told people that the US would severely limit immigration, they would think you were nuts. Until very recently, most people considered it a fundamental human right to be able to live wherever you wanted. Very rarely did governments try to lock others out. When Spanish "Christians" persecuted Jews in the 15th century, the Jews got up and moved to the Ottoman Empire and were welcomed by the government, though not the people. Only since the rise of American prosperity have Americans decided they need to lock out others. Libertarians would argue for opening the borders to any newcomers.

You are correct. Let me refer people once more to the Cato Institute.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10438

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10650

There are other articles here:

http://www.cato.org/immigration

I fully agree with you that the Gospels, or the whole Bible for that matter, lays all of this out for us. At the end of the day we have to interpret the Bible, and often try do so regarding issues that are not specifically addressed in the Biblical text.

However, I do disagree that there is a difference between helping the poor and pushing for change in our systems that would help the poor. I believe the Bible is not simply written to individuals to tell individuals how to act. If we think that the Bible should be authoritative in our lives, should it not also be authoritative to how we believe our government and economic system should be structured?

Much of God's judgement against Israel and Judah in the Prophets were not against individuals not acting, but against society as a whole for not caring for the poor and oppressed. Now, we are not Israel, we are America, so you can't simply say that all of that applies to us. However, we do see the heart of God in the midst of that, and that he cares how a society structures itself and how it cares for people.

So I believe that the Bible should be authoritative for us, in how we act as individuals and how we vote and push for change in society in general.

Tell me what you think. Why should we expect a secular government to act like the church? I hear separation of church and state so often. It seems to be applied only when expedient. In this case, how do you reconcile holding a secular government to church standards?

Why should we impose our beliefs on others who don't share our views? By advocating a government solution to this problem, are we not imposing upon others to pay for policies they don't agree with, notwithstanding your opinion of this particular matter? It doesn't seem very Christian to make others pay for something Christians claim is the duty of the church and all followers of Jesus. Why not advocate for Christians to send funds to a non-profit organization that ministers to immigrants? This issue is construed to take a Christ-like stand for godly justice. I don't think Jesus would want us to take money by coercion through tax laws of a secular government to pay for what Christians should be doing and paying for themselves from a voluntary offering based on faith and love. We then leave the work of Jesus to a secular government that will undoubtedly treat people without the dignity and love they deserve. In fact, that is what has happened.

That's the great thing about America! You've missed my point if you think I'm advocating that Christians should not voice their views on this or any other matter of public policy. The theme of this article suggests that Christians show the love of God by loving immigrants. I agree with this 100%. What I don't understand is why we then leave the implementation of this to an ungodly government. Why would you be in favor of taking money from people who don't agree with your view by force, through the IRS tax code? Why not get the government out of immigration all together, let whoever wants to come over do so, then have Christians (whether through churches or a collective fund Christians contribute to) help these folks find jobs, learn English and take care of their needs? The way we are doing it now... and the way we are advocating immigration be done in the future, has nothing to do with a particularly Christian solution with a Christian aroma or flavor. It sometimes makes me wonder if pro-government forces are just using Christians by pulling on their heart strings to get what THEY want. The political parties then turns these folks into voting blocks by holding their benefits, and therefore their lives, captive by scaring them into thinking their political opposition will turn them out into the streets naked and destitute. If Christians take care of them, immigrants would not have this kind of power held over them.

NO ANSWER? REALLY, JUSTIN?

This is a perfect example of why Liberalism (Christian or otherwise) ultimately fails - it lacks intellectualism.

Sorry Justin, I could not reply directly under your last post, so I had to start a new thread.

While I do appreciate you responding, you are not actually answering the questions I have asked. This will now be the third time I have asked:
Sorry, Justin, I could not reply directly to your reply.

I will ask the questions a THIRD TIME and hope you will consider answering them...

1. Are you talking about legal or illegal immigrants?
2. When you say we are responsible for "loving them", what SPECIFICALLY does that mean? Amnesty? Social programs? What?

Thank you.

Nope. We are in agreement on advocacy issue. It's just the target of the advocacy that we disagree on. If you are for separation of church and state, why do you want the government doing what the church should be doing?

Thanks for your comment; let me respond in reverse order.

Tragically, I have encountered those who would not welcome people here, even legally. But this is admittedly a (fortunately) small but (perhaps unfortunately) vociferous minority.

With regarding to the legislation, perhaps I should clarify: I do agree with you that laws provide a minimum commonly-accepted moral standard, but no laws that are legislated can make people live good lives. Jesus said that all the law and the prophets are bound up in the two interconnected and inseparable commandments of "Love the Lord your God ..." and "Love your neighbor." I don't think we can legislate proactive behavior, such as loving our neighbor, since this is an exhortation to action rather than a prohibition of an action. And yet this proactive, beyond-the-letter-of-the-law behavior is what we are called to as Christians.

Regarding OT laws, I acknowledge that it was a different culture. But with regards to your final sentence, first paragraph, I don't think Old Testament laws dealt with illegal immigrants in the same way we see them since they didn't operate with strict borders or national boundaries in the same way that we do.

Finally, I would agree with you and Sam that no scripture tells us not to enforce laws. But the laws that Scripture would be referring to would be laws that addressed a community in the eastern Mediterranean. For modern Christians, in seeking to respect the law and authority, we cannot do so unthinkingly (and I'm not suggesting you are by any means!). Instead, we need to assess these laws in relation to Scripture: slavery was once legal; it was once illegal for women and people of color to vote; a hundred short years ago, my parents would have been legally prohibited from gaining American citizenship on the basis of their race; anti-miscegenation laws were only declared fully unconstitutional in 1967! So absolutely, let's be a nation that observes the law and upholds the law, but let's also make sure the laws that we observe and uphold are just and good laws as well!

I suppose in the end, I submit that I am not a legislator nor a public policy specialist--instead, I consider at what is offered in light of my best understanding of the kingdom of God and of biblical principles, fully open to learning more and being offered a different perspective.

I'd be curious to know your thoughts on Liuan Chen Huska's story, which we shared a couple weeks ago.

Thanks for your comment. I would agree with you that Christians can come up with different ways of addressing problems. As I said in a previous reply, I'm not a legislator nor a policy maker. I look at what's offered in light of my understanding of the values of the kingdom of God and the call to love my neighbor.

Regarding your example, though, I would absolutely advocate for an increase of the minimum wage--an increase of two dollars an hour is an additional $4,000 a year (assuming 200 work days and 40 hour weeks), which is almost half the federal poverty wage level for an individual.

The Cato Institute, which takes a classic libertarian view on immigration, has done studies to show that the vast majority of immigrants ("legal" or not) come to the U.S. to find jobs and to do work. They don't come here for welfare, Medicaid, etc; these are inaccurate stereotypes put out by the anti-immigration movement.

Like most libertarian organizations, the Cato Institute doesn't believe in most government welfare programs that exist in the U.S. But that's beside the point as far as the Cato Institute is concerned because the vast majority of immigrants come here for jobs, not welfare.

"By advocating a government solution to this problem, are we not imposing upon others to pay for policies they don't agree with, notwithstanding your opinion of this particular matter?"

By the way, many libertarians have argued that putting up walls, hiring all sorts of border enforcers, etc. are simply other government solutions that tax payers end up paying for. Whereas allowing more immigration involves allowing free trade -- employers can legally hire people who wish to work for them. The myth that immigration costs more in terms of welfare, Medicaid, etc. is exactly that: a myth. Most studies done by the Cato Institute and other free-trade organizations show that allowing immigrants to come and be hired increases productivity and revenue.