Principles and Practice: Loving our Immigrant Neighbors
The immigration issue is quite controversial and the rhetoric is often polarizing. Even in this highly-charged political climate, there is widespread agreement that the current immigration system desperately needs repair. In this essay, I suggest that we evaluate proposals for immigration reform by asking to what extent different options are compatible with core principles, and I offer some practical suggestions for how we can reach out to our immigrant neighbors right now.
Principles to Help us Evaluate Immigration Proposals
In May of 2010, a theologically and ideologically diverse group of evangelical Christian leaders issued a call for immigration reform, stating: “we call on Democrats and Republicans to lead our nation toward a bipartisan solution on immigration that
- · respects the God-given dignity of every person,
- · protects the unity of the immediate family,
- · respects the rule of law,
- · guarantees secure national borders,
- · ensures fairness to taxpayers, and
- establishes a path toward legal staus and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents.”
I generally support these six principles and think they provide useful criteria to guide lawmakers and their staff as they seek comprehensive immigration reform. As Christians, we can use these principles as practical guidelines to help us evaluate different policy proposals and consider the effects of current law and practice.
The first three principles outline goals that I expect most Christians will support intuitively: upholding the dignity and value of all of God’s image bearers, protecting nuclear families, and respecting the rule of law. The implications of the latter three principles are more contested, so let me offer a few further thoughts about each:
“Guarantees secure national borders” – Given the vast expanses of our northern and southern borders, the goal of guaranteeing secure borders seems out of reach. Complete security may not be possible, but we can set goals to secure our borders both to minimize illegal entry of those seeking to live in the United States and to take significant measures to keep out terrorists and others who seek entry with malevolent intent.
“Ensures fairness to taxpayers” – Millions of undocumented workers pay significant taxes yet are ineligible for many government benefits like Medicaid. According to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, however, these tax revenues do not fully offset the total cost of government services undocumented workers and their families receive. Federal law should redistribute revenues in ways that help states bear this financial burden.
“Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship” – Existing laws are heavily weighted toward highly-skilled, highly-educated immigrants and those closely related to American citizens. But current immigration policy offers few, if any, options for poor laborers to enter the United States legally to meet labor needs essential for economic growth. Before we can demand that immigrants “wait their turn in line,” immigration policy needs to provide some sort of line for those seeking entry, with limits designed to reflect shifts in labor market needs.
Loving Our Immigrant Neighbors Right Now
Public policy is important; political changes could and would make a difference on this important issue. But regardless of what happens in Washington, American Christians can be making real and meaningful differences right now. Our churches need to be out front sharing God’s love with our immigrant neighbors. What can we do?
Perhaps the place to start is asking: What is legal? It is legal to serve and help immigrants, regardless of their legal status; it is illegal to hire undocumented workers. Because of ambiguous statutory language, the legality of providing transportation can be a gray area.
So what might be most helpful? Our churches can and should be centers for compassion-based ministries such as English language classes, tutoring programs, evangelism and outreach, counseling, food pantries, and health and dental clinics that seek to meet the spiritual, emotional, and physical needs of our most vulnerable neighbors, regardless of citizenship status.
Another way churches can meet significant needs is providing legal services to help immigrants comply with the law. The need for affordable legal services is desperate. In DuPage County, Illinois, for example, the one organization providing such services, World Relief of DuPage, is able to help about 5,000 clients a year in a county with an estimated 55,000 undocumented immigrants. Current immigration law provides a pathway for interested individuals to earn accreditation with the Board of Immigration Appeals; a law degree is not necessary to gain the skills and certification to help immigrants comply with the law.
Churches have provided such services in the past. In the wake of the 1980’s amnesty, some churches organized legal clinics to help immigrants navigate the process. The work was successful in many ways. According to Matthew Soerens of World Relief, “A lot of people came to the church for the first time to get help filling out legal paperwork and stayed and became a part of local churches.”
Most of my comments have focused on answering questions about how the church can serve immigrants. But we must also remember that immigrants serve us as well. Not only are they our neighbors and valuable members of our community, they are also essential partners in sharing the gospel across the globe and in the United States. Discussing the shifting center of church growth, Timothy C. Tennent, President of Asbury Theological Seminary, explained, “The immigrant population actually presents the greatest hope for renewal in North America. . . This group that we want to keep out is the group that we most need for spiritual transformation.”
I greatly appreciated your essay, especially that you devoted a large portion of it to discussing practical ways we, (more specifically, the Christian community), can help our immigrant neighbors right now. Obviously, time and space limit the ability to list every possible way of helping, but I did want to mention one that is frequently overlooked.
Learning the language of our neighbors is not only helpful, but is perhaps even one of our Christian duties. Public schools begin teaching foreign language to our children at an early age as a means of preparing them to be more successful in the business world. I believe it is a moral obligation of parents and churches to teach foreign language to children at an early age as a means of fulfilling two of Christ’s commissions: to take the gospel to the world, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Charlotte Mason, an education philosopher, writes the following:
It is the duty of the nation to maintain relations of brotherly kindness with other nations; therefore it is the duty of every family, as an integral part of the nation, to be able to hold brotherly speech with the families of other nations as opportunities arise; therefore to acquire the speech of neighbouring nations is not only to secure an inlet of knowledge and a means of culture, but is a duty of that higher morality (the morality of the family) which aims at universal brotherhood; [Charlotte Mason Series Vol 2, p 8]
Learning a foreign language requires significant time and effort, and I’m not proposing any brother or sister in Christ should be admonished for failing to do so. However, I do think that we should be prepared to lovingly “nip in the bud” comments suggesting that those living in the USA should use exclusively English, or that English speaking citizens should avoid catering to those more comfortable speaking in their native tongue realizing that the significant time and effort required to learn a different language works both ways.
Additionally, while churches offering English lessons to help immigrants is a wonderful idea, I think it would be equally helpful to offer classes designed to help those of us who speak English to communicate more effectively with our Spanish speaking neighbors.
As you note, we can only scratch the surface of these issues in our brief comments. It is encouraging to see posts like yours that add important elements to the discussion and offer room for more details.
I heartily agree that churches can also serve by helping native English speakers learn other languages, especially those most frequently spoken by immigrant and refugee families in their area. We are better able to love, serve, and learn from our immigrant neighbors if we can speak their native tongue. Basic conversation classes in a range of languages would well serve local churches, their members, and the communities around them.
As you note, we can only scratch the surface of these issues in our brief comments. It is encouraging to see posts like yours that add important elements to the discussion and offer room for more details.
I heartily agree that churches can also serve by helping native English speakers learn other languages, especially those most frequently spoken by immigrant and refugee families in their area. We are better able to love, serve, and learn from our immigrant neighbors if we can speak their native tongue. Basic conversation classes in a range of languages would well serve local churches, their members, and the communities around them.
As you note, we can only scratch the surface of these issues in our brief comments. It is encouraging to see posts like yours that add important elements to the discussion and offer room for more details.
I heartily agree that churches can also serve by helping native English speakers learn other languages, especially those most frequently spoken by immigrant and refugee families in their area. We are better able to love, serve, and learn from our immigrant neighbors if we can speak their native tongue. Basic conversation classes in a range of languages would well serve local churches, their members, and the communities around them.
Dr. Black,
I appreciate how your essay reminds us of the ways the Church (gathered and dispersed) can do justice to illegal immigrants, regardless of the public policy outcomes. It reminds Christians who are deeply concerned about the rule of law (as I am) that there is so much we are commanded and invited to do for and alongside illegal immigrants as we try to respond to God in our many different “offices” in life as neighbors, volunteers, parishioners, teachers, friends, and so on. And the idea that God may be using immigrants at this time in our history to bring renewal to North American Christianity is something that has never seriously entered my consciousness. I guess that says something about how shaped I am by my American identity.
As to your comments about public policy, you addressed the principal of guaranteeing secure national borders and how this goal seems out of reach. Since the mid-1990s when the U.S. began to see a substantial increase in illegal immigration across its southern border, the U.S. has not provided sufficient legal pathways for low-skilled labor to enter. You address this when you said, “Before we can demand that immigrants ‘wait their turn in line,’ immigration policy needs to provide some sort of line for those seeking entry, with limits designed to reflect shifts in labor market needs.” Then you mentioned “terrorists and others who seek entry with malevolent intent.” It seems to me if the U.S. could, on a large scale, regularize legitimate immigration into this country through guest-worker programs and increased avenues for legal permanent residence of various kinds, then persons making entry illegally with malevolent intent could be more easily identified. Customs, border, and immigration enforcement agencies could then focus their efforts more precisely.
It is discouraging to see what happened to President Bush in the mid-2000s when he attempted to craft a guest-worker program, but serious consideration of policy changes like this and others that drastically increase legal pathways into the U.S. would mitigate so many issues—immigrant cooperation with local law enforcement, immigrants paying taxes, the difficulties of setting priorities by Federal agencies responsible for immigration enforcement, compliance of businesses with the law, the untenable imbalance between the supply of legal immigration pathways into the U.S. for low-skilled immigrants and the demand for such pathways, etc.
Thank you again for your essay.
Dr. Black,
I appreciate how your essay reminds us of the ways the Church (gathered and dispersed) can do justice to illegal immigrants, regardless of the public policy outcomes. It reminds Christians who are deeply concerned about the rule of law (as I am) that there is so much we are commanded and invited to do for and alongside illegal immigrants as we try to respond to God in our many different “offices” in life as neighbors, volunteers, parishioners, teachers, friends, and so on. And the idea that God may be using immigrants at this time in our history to bring renewal to North American Christianity is something that has never seriously entered my consciousness. I guess that says something about how shaped I am by my American identity.
As to your comments about public policy, you addressed the principal of guaranteeing secure national borders and how this goal seems out of reach. Since the mid-1990s when the U.S. began to see a substantial increase in illegal immigration across its southern border, the U.S. has not provided sufficient legal pathways for low-skilled labor to enter. You address this when you said, “Before we can demand that immigrants ‘wait their turn in line,’ immigration policy needs to provide some sort of line for those seeking entry, with limits designed to reflect shifts in labor market needs.” Then you mentioned “terrorists and others who seek entry with malevolent intent.” It seems to me if the U.S. could, on a large scale, regularize legitimate immigration into this country through guest-worker programs and increased avenues for legal permanent residence of various kinds, then persons making entry illegally with malevolent intent could be more easily identified. Customs, border, and immigration enforcement agencies could then focus their efforts more precisely.
It is discouraging to see what happened to President Bush in the mid-2000s when he attempted to craft a guest-worker program, but serious consideration of policy changes like this and others that drastically increase legal pathways into the U.S. would mitigate so many issues—immigrant cooperation with local law enforcement, immigrants paying taxes, the difficulties of setting priorities by Federal agencies responsible for immigration enforcement, compliance of businesses with the law, the untenable imbalance between the supply of legal immigration pathways into the U.S. for low-skilled immigrants and the demand for such pathways, etc.
Thank you again for your essay.
Dr. Black,
I appreciate how your essay reminds us of the ways the Church (gathered and dispersed) can do justice to illegal immigrants, regardless of the public policy outcomes. It reminds Christians who are deeply concerned about the rule of law (as I am) that there is so much we are commanded and invited to do for and alongside illegal immigrants as we try to respond to God in our many different “offices” in life as neighbors, volunteers, parishioners, teachers, friends, and so on. And the idea that God may be using immigrants at this time in our history to bring renewal to North American Christianity is something that has never seriously entered my consciousness. I guess that says something about how shaped I am by my American identity.
As to your comments about public policy, you addressed the principal of guaranteeing secure national borders and how this goal seems out of reach. Since the mid-1990s when the U.S. began to see a substantial increase in illegal immigration across its southern border, the U.S. has not provided sufficient legal pathways for low-skilled labor to enter. You address this when you said, “Before we can demand that immigrants ‘wait their turn in line,’ immigration policy needs to provide some sort of line for those seeking entry, with limits designed to reflect shifts in labor market needs.” Then you mentioned “terrorists and others who seek entry with malevolent intent.” It seems to me if the U.S. could, on a large scale, regularize legitimate immigration into this country through guest-worker programs and increased avenues for legal permanent residence of various kinds, then persons making entry illegally with malevolent intent could be more easily identified. Customs, border, and immigration enforcement agencies could then focus their efforts more precisely.
It is discouraging to see what happened to President Bush in the mid-2000s when he attempted to craft a guest-worker program, but serious consideration of policy changes like this and others that drastically increase legal pathways into the U.S. would mitigate so many issues—immigrant cooperation with local law enforcement, immigrants paying taxes, the difficulties of setting priorities by Federal agencies responsible for immigration enforcement, compliance of businesses with the law, the untenable imbalance between the supply of legal immigration pathways into the U.S. for low-skilled immigrants and the demand for such pathways, etc.
Thank you again for your essay.