Local Responses to Washington Gridlock on Immigration Reform

/in /by

The current legislative gridlock in Washington is devastating. Severe societal problems persist because D. C. politicians can’t find common ground to effect solutions that will promote the common good.

As I have argued in earlier musings and in my recent book Evangelicals on Public Policy Issues: Sustaining a Respectful Political Conversation, the root problem is fixation on either/or solutions rather than the necessary both/and solutions.

For example, the federal budget deficit problem will not be solved by EITHER cutting expenditures OR increasing revenues; both are needed.

In the gun control debate, the choice is not between EITHER addressing the mental health and culture of violence problems that beset our nation OR legislatively enacting some commonsense gun control measures. It has to be both.

In the debate about immigration reform the choice is not between EITHER improving border security and appropriately punishing those who have broken the law by entering our country illegally OR the pressing need to provide a viable pathway to citizenship for those undocumented workers who are making an enormous contribution to our economy and our country and whose families are being decimated by current broken immigration laws. It has to be both.

Focusing on this latter problem, the Immigration Reform bill that passed the U. S. Senate is a both/and bill. It calls for both greater border security and an arduous pathway to citizenship that punishes those who have entered the country illegally by means of significant fines. Those who erroneously argue that this bill provides “amnesty, which means “no punishment,” reflect a lack of moral imagination in not being able to envision something in-between “no punishment” and the extreme punishment of “deportation.”

Yet this attempt at “both/and” legislation hit a dead end in the House of Representatives. The reasons for that failure are surely complex. It reflects, in part, the questionable procedural rule that enables the Speaker of the House to prevent a vote on a bill that had enough votes to pass. In the corner of Iowa in which I live, it also reflects a major lack of trust in President Obama on the part of many conservatives that he will enforce whatever measures are legislated to strengthen border security, which is devastating since “trust lost” is not easily regained. But, in my estimation, the major reason for this gridlock is the prominence of either/or thinking (either abiding by the rule of law or providing a pathway to citizenship). It has to be both, which means that those on both sides of the aisle will not get only what they want. But our D. C. politicians do not seem capable of getting beyond the view that “it’s my way or the highway.”

So, whatever the reasons for the current Washington gridlock regarding immigration reform, that is our reality. How can citizens respond to the gridlock? By acting locally, either through their state legislators or municipal governments. I will illustrate this strategy by describing a local initiative in which I have been involved as Chair of the Advocacy Group of CASA of Sioux County, a local organization (Center for Assistance, Service and Advocacy) whose “vision” is for “transformed Northwest Iowa communities that welcome, empower, and celebrate people from all cultures” toward the “goal” of “diverse cultures enriching one another.”

The initiative for which CASA has been advocating is for the Iowa legislature to enact legislation that will provide temporary driver’s licenses for eligible immigrants (officially called “Temporary Visitors Drivers Licenses – TVDLs). The desired contours for the proposed legislation are as follows.

_____________________

ELIGIBILITY: Immigrants, whether documented or not,  will be eligible to receive a temporary Iowa driver’s license (renewable every two years) if they meet the following requirements:

 

  • ·       Passing a driving test and demonstrating knowledge of rules of the road
  • ·       Providing proof of established Iowa residency (utilities bill or bank statement)
  • ·       Providing proof of identification (verifiable passport or a consular government  ID such as the Mexican Matricula Consular)
  • ·       Obtaining and carrying proof of auto insurance

LIMITATIONS: These driver’s license cards will be visually distinct from other licenses, and are marked on their face as not valid for identification or federal purposes. Given these differences, no one can use a driver’s license card to register to vote or vote, apply for public benefits, apply for a Firearm Owner ID card, board an airplane, or enter a federal building.

BENEFITS:

Public Safety – An increasing number of law enforcement officers in Iowa (and in the 13 states that have already approved such temporary driver’s licenses) are supporting legislation for temporary licenses because such legislation will promote law enforcement goals for public safety in the following ways:

 

  • ·       Roadway safety will be improved for all Iowans by ensuring that all drivers get tested on their driving skills, know the rules of the road, and have access to insurance. People are more likely to flee from the scene of traffic accidents if they are driving without a license.

 

  • ·       Adding those with temporary driver’s licenses to the Iowa DOT database will allow for correct identification and apprehension of criminals in our communities instead of focusing valuable law enforcement resources and time on minor traffic infractions.

 

  • ·       During medical emergencies involving immigrants, first responders, health care providers and crime victim advocates will be able to use the license to identify the individuals they are assisting.

Immigrant Families – For immigrants, driving is a necessity for going to work and providing for their families, including trips to the doctor, to church, to the grocery store, and school. Temporary driver’s licenses will contribute to the well-being of immigrant families by making such driving possible for all licensed immigrants.

Local Employers – Local employers benefit when all their employees can be assured of a dependable means to travel to work. Temporary driver’s licenses will make this possible for many immigrant employees who do not presently have dependable means of transportation.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: As legislation for temporary driver’s licenses is written and works its way through the Iowa Legislature, CASA and other advocates for this legislation will work to insure that the information that is revealed in applying for a temporary license does not go beyond the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), and therefore will not be accessible to the federal government for the purpose of punitive action by the Federal government against undocumented immigrants.

____________________

This proposed legislation is a win-win-win proposition: public safety will improve (which has proven to be the case in the states that have already enacted such legislation); businesses will benefit because it will be easier for all their employees to drive to and from work; immigrant families will benefit because of greater mobility. What is not to like?

In my corner of Iowa I have heard two objections. First, some say that “the federal government needs to act before the state can pass policy to handle this problem.” My response is that Iowans can’t wait to reap these benefits until the U. S. Congress acts (which will not be in the foreseeable future). Immigration reform gridlock in D. C. should not keep Iowans from the good we can do right now.

But a more difficuly objection to address, because it is too often unspoken, is that such legislation will “reward those who have broken the law” (undocumented immigrants who have entered the country illegally). This objection must be openly acknowledged and addressed head-on.

Let me grant, for the sake of argument, that under a certain definition of “reward” this objection is valid. I will call this the “downside” of the proposed legislation. But the dilemma that Iowans face is that not enacting such legislation has a more destructive “downside”; the negative effects on public safety, the harm done to local businesses, and the harm done to immigrant families. To be sure, if comprehensive immigration reform of the type passed by the U. S. Senate became the law of the land, this concern about rewarding those who have broken the law would evaporate (since that legislation includes appropriate punishments). But that will not happen soon. So, in the meantime, Iowans should do the “good that is possible” by choosing that option that minimizes a perceived “downside.”

This extended example of proposing Iowa state legislation to grant temporary driver’s licenses to eligible immigrants is only one illustration of the good that can be done locally in response to Washington gridlock on immigration reform. In a similar fashion, state and local municipalities should take action to address a host of other societal problems that politicians in Washington appear to be incapable of addressing. It is encouraging that a number of big city mayors and state governors and legislatures are now taking such local initiatives to promote the common good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

G92, Immigration Reform, and a Letter from a Birmingham Jail

/7 Comments/in /by

Last week was the last full week of Black History Month. I ended the month pressing for Immigration Reform in the birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement.

When I landed in Birmingham, Alabama last Wednesday night, it struck me that I was on my way to Samford University—the flagship University of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). It struck me that the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest evangelical denomination in the country and among the most conservative. It struck me that Alabama used to boast that it had the harshest Jim Crow laws and law enforcement during the Civil Rights era. Now it boasts the harshest anti-immigrant law in the nation.

Passed into law on June 9, 2011, HB56 criminalizes Alabamans’ daily associations with immigrants who cannot prove their legal status. Giving an undocumented immigrant a ride can result in criminal arrest. The legislation also prohibited all businesses (including schools, the water company, and the telephone company among others) from conducting business transactions on any level with anyone who could not prove their legal status. Tens of thousands of Latino families fled Alabama within weeks of the law’s passage. Businesses closed, schools lost huge percentages of their students, and vegetables were left to rot in the fields.

 I was in Birmingham to speak at the G92 South Conference, a one-day conference for students and pastor hosted on Samford’s sprawling campus. G92 is a reference to the 92 times the Hebrew word Ger is used in the Bible. Ger means stranger or sojourner. The conference began last autumn at Cedarville University in Ohio. It is now being replicated on Christian college campuses across the country. Samford University was the second campus to agree to host the conference.

The night before the conference convocation, several of us conference planners and speakers went to a nearby Mexican restaurant for dinner. Our blonde waiter took our dinner orders as we downed chips, salsa and quacamole. As he walked away from the table it hit me—all of the waiters in this Mexican restaurant were white—with blonde hair. I wasn’t the only one to notice. We looked back toward the kitchen and saw that all the cooks were white, too. We scanned the restaurant. There was only one Latino couple in the entire restaurant. HB56 happened here.

Over the course of G92 South Southern Baptist students and pastors and other attendees were  challenged by the example of immigrants in the Bible; such as Abram, Joseph, Moses, Jesus, and Paul, among others. They were challenged by the commands of God concerning immigrants, such as Leviticus 19: “When a sojourner resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the sojourner. The sojourner who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the sojourner as yourself, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” In light of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13, which call for obedience to governing authorities, and Romans 12 which calls believers not to be conformed to the ways of this world, students were called to ask the first and most important question about laws: “Is it a good law?” “Does this law conform to world or does it conform to the mandate of God to love God and love your neighbor as yourself?” Students dialogued with two student immigrants; one documented, one undocumented and, as a result, were exposed to details about our broken immigration system that set some back on their heels.

For example, many did not know the reason so many Mexicans have flowed across our southern border since 1985 is because of policies put in place by President Reagan and exacerbated by President Clinton’s NAFTA agreement which increased trade between the U.S. and Mexico. Increased trade would have been good, but America’s highly subsidized corn put corn farmers in Mexico out of business. They couldn’t compete with America’s artificially low prices. Thousands of farmers and their families lost everything, moved to the cities where there was an already weak safety net. The bottom fell out and people could no long afford to eat. Our government policies are a large part of the reason why Mexico’s economy has tanked over the past 30 years.

I was the last speaker in the Student Track. My session was titled “What Next? Mobilizing for Immigration Reform.” By the end of the training students’ heads were bowed and their first act toward social change was personal repentance. Students and faculty prayed prayers of repentance for seeing immigrants as people created to serve them. They repented for satisfaction with apathetic hearts. They repented for not reaching out to see how they could serve their immigrant neighbors in this great time of need. It was beautiful.

500 Samford Students experienced G92 last week. They witnessed the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Dr. Richard Land, as he read through the Southern Baptists’ resolution to call for comprehensive immigration reform and a path to legal status for the 11 million undocumented immigrants who currently reside in the U.S. They heard him compare the current HB56 law to similar proposals made in congress in 2007, during the Bush Administration’s push for reform. They heard Dr. Land compare the 2007 proposals to the Fugitive Slave Laws of the antibellum south.

And as a result of it all, the students and faculty of Samford University are now mobilizing for Immigration Reform. They are planning to bring me back to conduct a longer training for their students and possibly to speak in chapel.

I am flashing back, once again, on the last day of Black History Month. I recall the days of the Civil Rights movement. How amazing would it have been if Samford’s Southern Baptist students had joined the little black children who filled the Birmingham jails back in 1963? How beautiful would it have been if Samford’s faculty and students answered Dr. King’s Letter from the Birmingham Jail and it’s apology for why the Black community can’t wait for justice any longer, with the resolute reply: “We can’t wait either!”

Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of the Letter from the Birmingham Jail. Perhaps then the Samford students and faculty and those from other Christian colleges across the country who will host G92 between now and then will finally be able to answer King’s call. Perhaps after a year of local trainings and community-based mobilizing, they will be able to join their voices with the chorus of immigrants, who used to be their neighbors. And perhaps they will offer this resolute reply: “We can’t wait for comprehensive immigration reform either!”

Let it be so.

From Principle to Policy: Navigating the Moral Terrain of Immigration Reform

/16 Comments/in /by

If there is one debate in American politics where an “alternative political conversation” is most needed, it is the debate over immigration reform.  Perhaps because we are a nation of immigrants, perhaps because the debate connects with so many other sensitive policy issues, or perhaps because of deeply-felt but poorly-articulated fears concerning those who are different, the rhetoric that opponents level at each other—and at immigrants themselves—has been the opposite of what anyone would call Christian.   Indeed, our lack of progress on the issue can be explained to a great extent by the way we talk about it.  

Christians in particular should be troubled by this, whatever their positions might be on the various issues at stake.  Remarkably, however, there exists considerable agreement when it comes to identifying underlying moral principles.  Here, I suggest three, though no doubt there are more:

  • First, states have the authority—and indeed the responsibility—to police their borders.  As no country can admit simply everyone who wants to enter, states need to make decisions concerning the number of immigrants they can accept.  Moreover, states need to be concerned about cross-border criminal activity, including human trafficking.
  • Second, the desire of persons to migrate when they cannot find employment or other opportunities in their home country is legitimate, and even praiseworthy.  While migration may not be possible in all cases, states everywhere have a responsibility to facilitate migration flows, both for the sake of the countries involved and for the migrants themselves.
  • Third, the responsibility of states to do justice extends to all: citizens and non-citizens, legal and illegal residents alike.  Justice may not mean treating everyone alike, but it will require the recognition that all persons have dignity, and that this dignity comes not from the possession of a passport. Any number of implications may follow from this, but chief among them are responsibilities concerning hospitality and respect.

Now we can agree on the principles that should be brought to bear on a situation, and yet disagree as to where a reasonable balance of these principles might lead.  It’s entirely possible for people of good will to disagree with each other, for good reasons.  As I seek a balance of these principles, I can describe at least three possible conclusions:

  • Refugees have a special status in immigration policy.  Our commitment to justice for all implies that the right to asylum for those who suffer intolerable oppression cannot be denied.
  • A commitment to the rule of law implies that it is appropriate for governments to set limits on numbers of immigrants that can be admitted.  Moreover, when it does set limits, it is appropriate and responsible to enforce those laws, even through deportation if necessary and appropriate.
  • One result of our unwillingness to establish a comprehensive immigration policy has been a backlog of millions of undocumented residents, here partly because of failures to enforce the law at the border and at the places that hire them.  Our commitment to justice and our recognition of the legitimate desire of persons to improve their situations means that we share responsibility.  Even if it were possible to deport all those who are undocumented, it would wrong to do so.    

From here we can begin to develop policy guidelines.  For example:

  • While the distinction is often overlooked in popular political rhetoric, the situations of legal and illegal immigrants are so different that they require different treatments in terms of policy.  A debate over the precise number of immigrants admitted to the US, for example, is an entirely different topic than the debate over amnesty for those here illegally.  Similarly, popular frustration with undocumented residents gaining access to public services should not lead to restrictions on such services for immigrants who are here legally.
  • The state’s interest in protecting the weak as part of its justice mandate requires that it take special steps to protect the most vulnerable.  For that reason, children of illegal immigrants require special protection. Something like the DREAM act is likely to be an important step in this regard. 
  • For those undocumented who have long been here, working and contributing to society, we should establish the opportunity for legalization and citizenship.  Theirs is not the preferred path, and indeed we should endeavor to close it for others, but our unwillingness to enforce our own laws, our failure to facilitate migration for those who most seek it, and their demonstrated willingness to participate in American society all suggest in favor of moving in this direction.

These points together do not come close to a program for comprehensive reform.  But my hope is that as we disagree on these policy points, or as we see to contribute others, our policy disagreements might not be seen to indicate disagreement “all the way down”.  Immigration is indeed an issue where vital moral principles are at stake: let’s continue to affirm those basic principles while we debate the policy solutions. 

Monkeying Around in the Uberstau

/21 Comments/in /by

I live in Washington D.C. where most of my life is spent sitting in traffic. I used to live in Chicago and Los Angeles too, so I’m basically the Jane Goodall of traffic. After hours (and hours and hours) of field research, here’s a groundbreaking conclusion: traffic is maddening. Indeed, it drives everyone crazy. Some respond to traffic with Darwinian disregard for the rule of law. They cut people off, make illegal turns, and – in what I regard as the single biggest affront a commuter can commit – bypass congestion by driving on the shoulder.  Others respond to traffic by enforcing traffic law. We – err, they – work to ensure that rule breakers are thwarted by denying merges, reporting license plates to the police, and pulling halfway into the shoulder so that “bypassers” are impeded. The result is that no one is happy and everyone is late.

The U.S. immigration system is an überstau. A complex, crowded, and expensive bureaucracy hinders the flow of immigrants into our country. This leads frustrated travelers to break the rules in order to reach their desired destination. Others respond to this with indignation; why should cheaters reap the benefits of incivility while rule followers are punished?

As a Christian, a conservative, and an advocate of free enterprise I am convinced of the value inherent in every human being. The theology of Imago Dei and the conviction that human beings are the most important form of capital are congruous. Therefore, there is no more entrepreneurial act than immigration.

Immigrants founded our country, built it into the most prosperous society ever known, and continue to play a vital role in our economy. For example, a 2002 Brookings paper found that by 2000 more than 25% of Silicon Valley’s highly skilled workers were immigrants. Foreign-born entrepreneurs were running 29% of Silicon Valley’s technology businesses, accounting for more than $19.5 billion in sales and over 70,000 jobs. A report from the National Association for American Policy found that for every H-1B worker hired (high-skilled immigrant), five new jobs were created.

Low-skilled immigrants also contribute to the American economy in an important way. The Perryman Group found that in the 1960s 50% of American men worked in low-skilled jobs. The last 50 years have seen a transformation in education and the nature of the U.S. economy so that today that number stands at just 10%. Yet, there is still a demand for low-skilled labor.

So-called “comprehensive immigration reform” has proven to be a political minefield. Responding adequately to the concerns of communities struggling to adapt to the influx of immigrants into their communities, the interests of specific voting blocs like labor unions, and the millions of illegal immigrants and their families currently here will require a heroic, bipartisan effort. Yet, there are some smaller fixes that could be done in the meantime.

Last January, Arizona Representative Jeff Flake introduced legislation to exempt graduates of American universities with degrees in the high-demand fields of science, technology, engineering, and math and a job offer from a U.S. firm from government immigration quotas. The STAPLE Act is a vast improvement from the $2,500-$4,500 U.S. firms pay in government fees under the current H1-B system.

A 21st century version of the Bracero guest worker program would meet the demand for low-skilled immigrant labor. Guest workers would be granted free access to and from the U.S., taxed appropriately, and given protections from employer exploitation.

America needs and wants an effective immigration system that meets the demands of firms for both high and low-skilled workers and provides opportunities for new citizens and temporary guests to experience personal prosperity while contributing to the common good. The best approach to achieving this end is market-based reforms that validate the humanity of all involved.  

Loving the Undocumented Immigrant

/21 Comments/in /by

“When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him.  The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born.  Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt.  I am the Lord your God.” Leviticus 19:33-34

What is a thoughtful, Christian approach to the immigration issue?  The above text from Leviticus is a starting point, but it is hardly the final word.  It is too simple to say that the instructions laid down by God thousands of years ago for the ancient Israelites is what should determine American public policy towards immigration in the 21st century.  Yet it is a starting point, since it highlights the fact that immigrants—whether they came here legally or illegally—have a great human worth that has been given them by God as his image bearers, a human worth we and our policies ought to acknowledge and respect.  

In keeping with this attitude and the very complex nature of the immigration issue I first list four basic facts that should be taken into account as we examine our nation’s immigration policies, facts that many radio and TV talking heads—not to mention many politicians—like to ignore.  Next, I suggest three proposed changes in our immigration policies, especially as they relate to undocumented immigrants.

First four basic facts:

  1. Those immigrants who have come here illegally—who are undocumented—have broken the law.  This is no light matter.  A Christian view of justice and legal means to reach a more just society hold a high view of the law—and an equally high view of the seriousness of breaking it.
  2. Many American employers desire and need immigrants, including the undocumented.  Most immigrants fill low-wage, low-skill jobs that employers otherwise have a hard time filling.  There is a symbiotic relationship between immigrants seeking employment—even at wages that are low by American standards—and employers who need workers and are unwilling or unable to pay wages that would attract American workers.  And all of us as consumers benefit from lower prices.  We too are a part of the problem.  Thus from the strawberry fields of California to the chicken processing plants of Iowa to the resorts of Florida employers do not check the official papers of their workers too carefully.  With a wink and a nod they hire undocumented workers, while knowing many must indeed be undocumented.  Undocumented immigrants are not the only ones breaking the law.
  3. The U.S. economy would suffer, even catastrophically, if all undocumented immigrants would magically disappear overnight.  Crops would rot in the fields, meat processing plants would close, hotels and office buildings would not be cleaned, and the whole economy and the life styles most of us enjoy would suffer.
  4. Our current immigration laws are rife with injustices, often separating husband from wife or children from parents.  If a young woman who is an American citizen marries a young man who is undocumented, and this couple have children, living model lives together for years, and then the man is found to be undocumented, the family can be split up as the man is sent back to his home country.  Children who were brought to the United States as minors, have live here for years, and have been successful in school, can be and often are sent back to their original countries even though they had no say in coming here in an undocumented status. 

In light of these facts what would more humane immigration policies look like, policies that uphold the law, treat undocumented immigrants with justice, and protect the American economy?  I believe at a minimum three new policies are needed. 

One is to establish a guest worker program.  Many in nearby countries do not even want to come to the United States permanently.  They only want to support themselves and families in a way that their own countries’ economies do not allow.  Meanwhile, there are many American employers who need low-wage workers with the strong work ethic that many of these same persons have.  A guest worker program that allows workers into the United States on a temporary basis would meet the needs of both the workers now living in poverty in their home countries and the employers in need of workers.

A second step is to create disincentives for employers to hire undocumented workers.  All immigrants, whether permanent residents or temporary guest workers, should be issued a tamper-proof identity card, and severe penalties should be established for employers who hire workers who do not have such cards.  The cards could be made tamper-proof by way of modern technology such as embedded microchips.

These first two steps together constitute a much better solution to the problem of undocumented immigrants than relying on stopping illegal immigrants at the borders.  As long as there are persons in other countries eager to work in the United States and there are employers willing to hire them without asking too many questions, they will find a way to come. 

But what about the undocumented immigrants who are already here?  It is estimated there are 10 to 12 million such persons.  And while they broke the law in coming, we as a society are also complicit as employers have looked the other way and consumers have benefited from the low wages they were willing to accept.  A path to legalization and citizenship should be provided for those already here and who have not been convicted of crimes or in other ways have demonstrated unsocial behavior.  This path to legalization and citizenship may be long and should involve some penalties for the undocumented persons who originally came here illegally, but the path should be there.  And those who came here as minors, brought by their parents, and those who have been here for a long time and are married to an American citizen, the path should be shorter and easier. 

These three proposals are not a complete answer, but they would set us on the path to an answer.   And I believe they are in keeping with a biblical sense of justice and with biblical calls to love the alien as ourselves. 

                                                                             Stephen V. Monsma

 

Immigration and the Church as an Alternative Polis

/15 Comments/in /by

 Each Sunday at my Baptist congregation the tradition of the invitation is renewed. The pastor invites anyone and everyone to come down the aisle and respond to the message as they feel led by God.

 Often when people stream down the aisle what they come seeking is membership. They communicate this to the pastor in a whispered conversation during the invitation hymn. When their information has been gathered, the pastor introduces the person to the rest of the community, along with the request to join our congregation. In our particular congregation, our pastor asks us to respond to this request by simply saying, together, “Welcome!” Invariably, everyone says welcome. It isn’t long before the aisle-walker is an official member of the congregation, with voting privileges and committee assignments and offering envelopes and all the rest of it.

 Harold Heie has named this series of discussions as “alternative political conversations.” Thinking about immigration this time around reminded me of a meaning of that phrase that perhaps Dr. Heie was not thinking of: the church as an “alternative polis” to such polities as nation-states.  This theme, so important in recent Christian ethics, resonates perhaps nowhere more profoundly than with regard to this issue of (illegal) immigration.

 In the church (at least, in my tradition), the proper response to the stranger is the one we offer: welcome! If the stranger wants to visit, we say welcome. If the stranger wants to make her home with us as a church member, we say welcome!

 So for Christians, welcome is our default setting. We can ground this welcome-default in many different texts of scripture, such as: “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me” (Mt 10:40). This makes for a pretty good place to start. Here the disciples are sent out into the mission fields, and are taught a kind of hospitality transitive principle: anyone who welcomes one of us welcomes Jesus; anyone who welcomes Jesus welcomes God; ergo, anyone who welcomes one of us welcomes God. And we know the same principle applies to our own meeting of the stranger: “As you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me” (Mt. 25:40). Anyone who welcomes and cares for one of the least of these welcomes and cares for Jesus himself.  And of course any Christian ought to be able to remember quite easily that through Christ’s sacrificial love and atoning death on the Cross, we have been welcomed into God’s family. The very identity “child of God” is the result of an act of divine welcome.

 But nations don’t welcome in this way. The default setting of the nation state is to say not welcome but stop! Show us your papers! Show us why we should let you come within our borders even temporarily! Show us what extraordinary reasons you can give for why we should let you become a member of this polity, a fellow citizen with us of this great community!

 The contrast could not be greater. Nation-states treat border-crossing as exceptional and transferred citizenship as dubious. Christians treat border-crossing as normal and transferred citizenship as joyous.

 For the serious biblical Christian, every fiber of our Christian identity should yearn for a world in which everyone (at least, everyone who poses no real threat to anyone else) is welcomed anywhere they want or need to go—a world in which welcome is the default setting and rejection is the exception. We cannot rest easy with a world of passports and border fences and armed guards with dogs. This is where we must start, even if it is agonizingly difficult at times to discern how to advance such core Christian commitments in the public policy of particular nations in particular circumstances.

 And so we turn to the situation in our own nation.

 It has been five years since the last serious push for immigration reform failed unexpectedly in Congress.  President Obama at least nodded in the direction of the problem in his recent State of the Union address. But it is hard to imagine any serious progress being made this year in our gridlocked federal government. And because the problem is a national one, it requires a national solution. State measures are not enough, and so far they are trending draconian.

 Our current system is broken. At least twelve million illegal/undocumented immigrants are already here, having come across our borders over several decades, mainly looking for hope and a future.  Though enhanced border enforcement, stern state laws, and our economic slowdown here have reduced the flow of illegal immigrants to a trickle recently, the problem certainly is not resolved. The failure to make enforceable federal immigration law undercuts respect for the rule of law, leaves illegal immigrants and their families in cruel limbo, distorts our labor markets, and creates perfect conditions for eruptions of nativism and xenophobia.

 Federal immigration law enforcement officials face an impossible situation. They do not have adequate budgets to even begin to try to find, incarcerate, and deport large numbers of illegal immigrants.  President Obama has recently adopted a stopgap strategy of focusing mainly on those who have actually broken the law while living here.  This is emergency triage, not an immigration policy.

 Some loud voices brashly call for just shipping all the illegal immigrants “back where they came from.” This is inconceivable and impossible. Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin forcibly deported over six million people during his reign of terror. Deportation advocates are asking the United States government to find and deport nearly twice as many. Any serious effort to do this would be outrageously expensive, a public relations disaster, and a serious violation of even our cramped national moral values.

 If Stalinesque deportations are not an option, and doing nothing is not an option, we really have no choice but to undertake some kind of comprehensive immigration reform along the lines proposed by President George W. Bush and under consideration in Congress for at least five years. It would invite those hiding uneasily in the shadows of America to come out and register their presence. Criminal background checks would weed out those whose behavior demonstrates that they should not stay here. Legalization could include some kind of requirement not just of paying taxes going forward but also a requirement to pay extra taxes for a period of time to help communicate the gravity of having broken immigration law in the first place.

 It is reasonable for such legislation to impose an English language proficiency requirement for anyone seeking to become an American citizen. Proficiency in the basics of American constitutionalism is already required. Surely one of the contributions that the churches should make in such a situation will be to offer our massive resources for free English language instruction, as well as doing whatever else we can to meet the basic human needs of this generally impoverished population.

 The problem of illegal immigration tests both our government and our churches. The government must demonstrate the ability to resolve a complex public policy challenge. The churches must demonstrate the ability to exercise a leavening cultural influence that elevates respect for the human dignity of all persons. We must clearly signal the ultimate insignificance of immigration status in the sight both of God and of the church, while providing practical aid to help resolve this problem for the sake of both our nation and those who are here illegally.

 

 

 

 

 

Principles and Practice: Loving our Immigrant Neighbors

/7 Comments/in /by

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.”

Topic #2: Immigration

/0 Comments/in /by

Please consider the following potential leading questions

 

#1: What is your perception of the adequacy, or inadequacy, of current federal immigration law?

 

#2: Within the context of current federal immigration law, how can citizens and various non-governmental organizations support and provide assistance to the immigrant community?

 

#3: Given the tension that can sometimes exist between the biblical call to “respect and abide by the law” and the biblical call to show “mercy and grace” and practice justice, especially toward the marginalized and vulnerable, how should Christians relate to immigrants who are living in the USA illegally?  

 

#4: If you perceive inadequacies in current federal immigration law, what changes would you propose?

 

#5: Under the changes you may propose, what do you see as the appropriate role of citizens and non-governmental-organizations?

 

#6: If you judge that comprehensive reform of immigration law is not politically feasible at this time, what “piecemeal” changes do you think are desirable and politically feasible? In particular, can you envision changes that would make immigration law more “family friendly” (keeping families together), that would lead to a strong “guest worker” program, or that could provide a path to “legal status,” if not citizenship, for illegal immigrants?

 

#7: To what extent, if any, should the various states be allowed to legislate immigration laws, and what should be the relationship of such state laws to federal immigration laws?