How does the command to love our neighbor as ourselves relate to illegal immigration?
Should Christians support an open border policy or amnesty or something like that? Aren't these people just looking to make a better life for themselves and their families? They just want the opportunity to work and feed their kids. Wouldn't we do the same thing if we were in their place? How can we deny them that chance? We shouldn't discriminate against them just for being born on the other side of an imaginary line. If we want the poor to help themselves, what more can we ask than these people who simply want to come here and work?
Is that what the golden rule requires? If so, we're in heap big trouble.
If loving our neighbor requires allowing anyone to come here, we certainly can't limit that to those born in Mexico or even South America. Why should we discriminate against those who were born in Africa or China. Don't they deserve the same chance to strive for a better life?
But if we say anyone anywhere who wants can come here, how can we limit that to those who have the means to get here? If we care about the poor, how can we neglect the poorest of the poor who could never afford to travel here? We will have to go get anyone who wants to immigrate here and bring them back.
How could it be otherwise?
Now, if you want to say we should do all of this ... well, at least you're consistent.
But does loving your neighbor really require such open immigration policies? I don't think so. There are three things we need to consider as we approach this problem.
1) Borders like we have today are a relatively modern invention. Nothing in the Bible directly addresses the issue because it didn't exist then.
2) While we're loving our Mexican, etc, neighbors who want to move here, we still have to love our Mexican, etc, neighbors who don't want to. Is the best thing for the people of Mexico to make it easy for their young, hardworking, talented people to abandon their country and come contribute to ours? Wouldn't open borders just be putting a band-aid on the real problem — a third-world country existing next to two of the most prosperous nations in history?
3) While we're loving our neighbors who want to immigrate illegally, we have to love our neighbors who did it legally. If we just throw open the borders, what do we say to someone who waded through the paperwork, waited for permission, fought with the bureaucracy, and otherwise obeyed all the rules? "Yeah, great, but this guy wants to be here, too."
It's easy to treat the Golden Rule as a feel-good, bumper-sticker slogan that can be tossed out to trump someone else's argument, but when thought through, it doesn't present much of a solution to our immigration woes.
I'm not prescribing any particular solution to the illegal immigration situation — right now, at least. I just want people to stop abusing "love your neighbor as yourself" as justification for their liberal views.
------
Related:
Immigration Reform and Christianity 1: Justice
Immigration Reform and Christianity 2: Mercy
Immigration Reform and Christianity 3: Pragmatism
Immigration Reform and Christianity 4: Solutions
10 comments:
1. I agree, however I think bot Old and New Testament speak clearly about the way we should treat strangers and foreigners: The general gist seems to be to welcome them and treat them well. I never saw the bit about the detention camps or the forced expulsion on account of not having the right kind of visa.
2. This is a gross generalization. Economic migration can benefit both countries in the long term since workers send money back home, and eventually return home with skills and valuable life experience. India is a perfect example of this.
3. I'm not a Christian, but my interpretation of the "love thy neighbour" bit was that the love should not be conditional on immigration status.
I just want people to stop abusing "love your neighbor as yourself" as justification for their liberal views.
Explain to me how it's loving to deport people who are trying to make a living based on their immigration status.
I think you will have to spin pretty hard to avoid the clear fact that the right-wing position on immigration is quite incompatible with the traditional Christian view of who our neighbour is and how we must treat them.
I sure hate to agree with your last commenter, but I do.
Hmmm...now that they are here, whose house should they sleep at? Only those without small children? Perhaps any they choose with a warmer bed? Will we love them more than the homeless already here? Is it a sin to keep anyone out of your house? How many beds do you have? Shouldn't they all be filled? Now for breakfast...should we only feed those who agree to work?
Yes. It sure gets complicated when moral ideals run smack up against practical realities. However, conservative Christians adamantly refuse to compromise on issues like abortion or same-sex marriage because they claim that the Bible won't permit them even to vote for a candidate who doesn't hold the right positions on these questions. On the other hand, they have no trouble finding all the wiggle room they need in the biblical injunction to "Love your neighbor as yourself" when it suits their purposes.
1) Borders like we have today are a relatively modern invention. Nothing in the Bible directly addresses the issue because it didn't exist then.
Joshua 12:7-24 shows there were borders as the original one nation under God wandered to the Promised Land.
Hmm, a comment appears to have disappeared after hitting my email. I'll address it anyway. By "borders like we have today," I meant this notion that a national border should be treated like an invisible wall, that there are only certain points through with a person should enter and only after asking politely. Travel and immigration seem to have much freer 2000 years go.
@"Dobson," there is no single right-wing position, though there are certainly many on the right who call for mass deportation. You noticed, I'm sure, that I have not.
3. But "loving" does not necessarily mean "nice." And perhaps this is an instance where it's simply not possible to love everyone equally. What do you do when the needs of your own citizens conflict with the needs of those who are not legally permitted to be here?
1. "Detention camps?" What are you talking about?
2. When your workers leave and send back cash, you don't have an economy; you have charity. We're not talking about India. What signs are there that this has been healthy for Mexico?
@Vinny,
What happened to the Democratic love of "nuance" that was so popular a few years ago? "Do not steal" is rather easier to apply than "husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church."
In the same way, "do not murder" is somewhat more straightforward than "love your neighbor." The application of the former is pretty clear; the latter, as I tried to show above, gets cloudy quickly.
What do you do when the needs of two neighbors are in competition? Do you flip a coin?
Should I help my neighbor steal my other neighbor's car? Or should I help him cheat on his wife? Well, if I was in his position, I'd want him to help me, right?
If the questions are difficult, isn't it refreshing contemplation moral ideals rather than operating from political expediency as is so popular these days.
ChrisB,
I don't think you showed that "love your neighbor" gets cloudy. What you showed is that it gets inconvenient.
As far "do not murder" (per the Conservapedia translation) goes, there was not a great uproar among evangelicals when the Roe v. Wade decision came down. Evangelicals only got on the anti-abortion bandwagon several years later when the tax-exempt status of schools like Bob Jones U. and Liberty U. were threatened for their refusal to admit Blacks. It wasn't a straight forward moral issue. It was a political issue.
That's it, Vinny, resort to the race card. That's always a winning hand, right?
I'll admit that evangelicals were slower than Roman Catholics in responding to abortion, but your cynical assessment is untrue and unnecessarily unkind.
And "do not murder" is the phrasing used in many (if not all) modern translations including the Jewish JPS version and the NRSV.
How is that the "race card"?
Isn't it a fact that the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University in January 1976? Isn't 1976 when Jerry Falwell decided to start speaking out on political issues? Conservative activist Paul Weyrich had been trying without success for several years to get evangelical leaders interested in various social issues, including abortion. He said that it wasn't until the Bob Jones case that he was able to get them interested.
1. "Detention camps?" What are you talking about?
Here's an example of what I'm talking about: http://www.ice.gov/pi/dro/facilities/southtexas.htm
These facilities are used to hold immigrants whose status or origin cannot be verified or for whom repatriation may be difficult. Courtesy of the neighbourly neighbours from southern TX.
But "loving" does not necessarily mean "nice."
Do please expand upon this concept of non-nice loving!
And perhaps this is an instance where it's simply not possible to love everyone equally. What do you do when the needs of your own citizens conflict with the needs of those who are not legally permitted to be here?
I'd be the first to point out that most of what's in the Bible is plain impossible, but it's rare to read a similar belief written by a Christian.
Vinny:
I don't think you showed that "love your neighbour" gets cloudy. What you showed is that it gets inconvenient.
Yep, agree with this. The Christian principle is painfully unambiguous.
Post a Comment