Illegal Immigration: Part... whatever

Many churches are getting into the debate about illegal immigrants. They keep telling us that it's the "Christian thing to do". However, here's a different take on the matter:

Who Holds the Moral Ground in the Immigration Debate? By Joe Murray July 10, 2006 (AgapePress) - "At this particular moment in our history," opined Cardinal Roger Mahoney, "there seems to be these strident voices that are very much anti-immigrant." Where are these voices the Cardinal is hearing coming from? Well, they would be the voices of the 80 percent of the American people who want an enforcement-first immigration policy. Faced with an American public that has grown tired of the daily invasion conducted by the border banditos, Mahoney decided to pull out his high horse. This past spring, in response to the success of the "anti-immigrant" voices he had been hearing, Mahoney threw down a gauntlet Washington could not ignore. If the enforcement-first bill passed by the House were to become law, Mahoney proclaimed: "I would say to all priests, deacons, and members of the Church that we are not going to observe this law." Why would Mahoney defy the U.S. immigration law? It is the moral thing to do. This brings us to the question at hand: does the open border, amnesty-first gang hold the moral high ground in the debate over immigration? Is an enforcement-first immigration policy inconsistent with, as Cardinal Mahoney has written, Christianity's "golden rule ... to serve people in need -- not to verify beforehand their immigration status ... ?" Are those seeking to secure the border going against the biblical grain? The Tijuana talking heads would say yes, but the Bible may take issue with that assessment. It is clear that the very concepts of nationalism and patriotism decried by the open borders gang are grounded in biblical principle. As Paul stated in Acts, "He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions so that people may see God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any of us." (Acts 17: 26-27). Thus, according to Paul, the creation of borders and the separation of people by culture, creed, and language, was part of God's plan to bring us closer to Him. Paul's understanding of this biblical principle is further supported in the Book of Genesis. It is evident that from the very beginning of creation, mankind began to form separate and distinct nations. "These are the descendants of Japheth, and from them sprang the maritime nations, in their respective lands -- each with its own language -- by their clans within their nations." (Genesis 10:5). At the end of Chapter 10, it is written that "[t]hese are the groupings of Noah's sons, according to their origins and by their nations. From these the other nations of the earth branched out of the flood." (Genesis 10:32). Genesis' teaching is clear -- the concepts of nationhood and cultural identity have been an integral part of the human experience from the beginning. Furthermore, notwithstanding the musings of the multicultural moralists, identifying your nation by language and creed has been the basis for birthing such a nation; it is a basis rooted in the Bible and is a basis that must be protected. Thus, if it can be concluded that language and culture matter in maintaining the nations created by God, does that nation have the right to protect its culture by securing its borders? Absolutely. Many in the open borders gang point to Exodus 22:21 to support their argument that it is immoral for the American people to refuse those who have broken into their country. Exodus 22:21 states that "[y]ou shall not wrong an alien, neither shall you oppress him, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt." There is no doubt that if this verse existed in a biblical bubble the moral capital of the open border argument would take on wings. This, however, is not the case. Exodus 22:21, however, does not exist in a bubble and must be interpreted in light of other principles contained in the Bible. When this is done it is clear that the Bible does not always see aliens as needy strangers. Jeremiah complained "[o]ur inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens." (Lamentations 5:2). Joel was unabashedly exclusionary when he proclaimed, "then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall be no strangers pass through her any more." (Joel 3:17). Even more compelling? Shortly after God proclaimed that aliens should not be oppressed, He makes yet another covenant with His people. In order that His people may have territory in which they can build their culture, creed, ethnicity and religion, God proclaims that: "I will drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Take care, therefore, not to make a covenant with these inhabitants of the land you are to enter; else they will become a snare among you." (Exodus 34:11-13). In other words, those that threaten your stability need not be welcomed into your home. Make no mistake, the Bible does not provide immigrants with a perpetual get out of jail free card when they occupy foreign lands. Nations are commanded to balance their responsibility to care for immigrants against the needs of people whose care is entrusted to them. Hence, the aforementioned verses provide a strong argument that when immigrants take advantage of those housing them, pollute the cultural well of the host nation, or violate the laws of the nation they reside, the biblical response would be to show them the door and quickly turn the deadbolt. In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus calls His people "to love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:39). If this Gospel passage is applied to the immigration debate, there is one last question that must be asked: can one still love his neighbor while protecting the house in which he lives? The answer, of course, is yes. Just because America is protecting her borders and her heritage from a populous people who do not share our ethnic identity, our culture, and our language, does not mean we do not love our neighbors. Quite the contrary. It was just a decade ago that America sent $50 billion to Mexico City to bail out that failing economy. Not to mention the U.S. aid that pours into Mexico on a daily basis. The notion that the only way we can love our Mexican neighbors is by handing over the keys to the store is not biblically based, nor is it consistent with the charge nations have to protect the interests of its own people. It is about time that someone knocked the open borders banditos off their high horses.

I rather like that last line. :)