As I write this, the National Association of Evangelicals has just passed a resolution urging Congressional reform of immigration laws invoking the ideals of respect and mercy and emphasizing the importance of family reunification.
But not everyone agrees. Just this week I attended a panel discussion devoted to the religious basis for arguments against reform at the National Press Club in Washington DC entitled “Religious Perspectives on Immigration.” It was sponsored by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which bills itself as an independent nonpartisan think tank on the impact of immigration on the United States.
The announcement of this panel caught my attention because none of the panelists seemed to represent the views of the nationwide Interfaith Immigration Coalition, the major collection of religious organizations dealing with immigration today, or of any of the many religious denominations that have spoken out on immigration issues. So whose perspectives were these?
I was aware that the Southern Poverty Law Center has characterized CIS as a nativist organization that advocates for drastic reductions in immigration. So I decided to attend to hear what they had to say, and to try to figure out if there are any points on which we could ever agree.
Panelists were Fr. Dominique Peridans, associate pastor of a Baltimore Roman Catholic parish, CIS Fellow James R. Edwards Jr., and CIS Senior Policy Analyst Stephen Steinlight. Each presented a paper explicating scriptural and other religious teachings as they bear on immigration—from Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish viewpoints, respectively.
The theme of all three papers was that leaders of all the mainstream religious groups are misinterpreting scripture and religious traditions when they issue policy statements that urge compassion and welcome for immigrants, or support comprehensive immigration reform (mischaracterized as advocacy for “open borders”), and that faithful parishioners should not be misled.
Edwards argued that religious leaders are, in effect, railroading their flocks, saying that the “self-described ‘compassion’ among religious elites differs from the perspective of most rank-and-file Christians.” And he names the National Association of Evangelicals in particular, knowing that they were on the verge of making the statement they made today, suggesting that their position on this issue is counter to that of the laity, which “generally opposes legalization and supports enforcement of immigration laws.”
Steinlight agreed, arguing that “in terms of simple willingness to recognize the danger of mass immigration by anti-Semitic groups [which he identifies as ‘Muslims and foreign-born Hispanics’], the gulf between ordinary American Jews and the Establishment is chasm-like.”
And, perhaps most strikingly, Fr. Peridans produced theological support for tighter border control :
A seemingly simplistic passage is made from the mandate to love (which, of course, includes the mandate to “welcome the stranger”) to public policy, as though “catholicity of heart” immediately translates into open borders. The statement gives no tools for discernment, because the important distinctions between philosophical perspective and a theological perspective are not made.
The concepts derived from scriptural admonitions to “render unto Caesar” (Matt. 22:21) and to submit to governing authorities (Romans 13) were emphasized throughout.
Just Plain Mean
I came away from the event feeling that these analysts and I live in very different worlds. I read scripture as teaching love, welcome, inclusion, hospitality. I know personally many immigrants who are suffering under our current immigration system’s inflexible and categorical laws with no allowance for individual circumstances. I believe that my faith calls me to work to change those laws, stop unjust deportations, give those worthy would-be Americans a chance. Those realities simply don’t match the realities seen by the CIS panelists. They call my version naïve; I think their version is too often just plain mean. Yet we all claim the same Abrahamic faiths.
All this got me wondering whether people of faith can ever reach a consensus on immigration. What follows are some reflections on that possibility—my religious perspectives on this critical issue for our nation right now:
Consensus is possible if we avoid false dichotomies.
We might be able to agree if we move out of the land of false dichotomies into a land of multiple problems, realistic caring, and mutual give-and-take. Both “sides” will have to give a little. Actually, there is no such thing as both sides. Most people use a cafeteria approach to the morality of the immigration issue. We pick and choose. The first step towards consensus would be to stop thinking in that binary way and to start thinking expansively and extravagantly and realistically. Extravagant creative realists will own the future of this debate.
Those who want to welcome immigrants will have to understand the legitimate concerns that many people have about the nation’s borders. But we all have to recognize that the welcoming people are not anti-law, nor are law-and-order people anti-welcome. Respecting the law does not automatically mean that you are racist or mean; nor does a concern for a broken legal system mean you are naïve.
Consensus can come in agreeing to be kind, not mean-spirited.
It can also come when we start taking seriously the scriptural command about loving the other as yourself. Of course we can love people and still deport them, just like we can love a friend and disagree with her. Limits are necessary. We limit our love all the time. But we can’t argue that Scripture does not command love, which surely involves kindness as well.
Both sides might agree that the rhetoric of the Lou Dobbs and Glenn Becks of the world is too mean—and that it leads too quickly to an objectification of human beings, which no religion wants. That objectification begets the kind of violence we are increasingly seeing. People of faith agree that such violence is to be avoided at all costs. You don’t have to be pro-immigrant to be anti-sneer. We could come to consensus around the need to change hate-language to love-language.
As the country creates a just and humane immigration policy (with reasonable limits), we could actually have an apology in our voice, as opposed to a sneer. “We are sorry we can’t let everyone in. We welcome you as a human being. We see your plight and your pain. We would love to enjoy your gifts because we know you have them. But only (pick your number) Mexicans or Ecuadorians or whoever can be welcomed this year.” Rereading the Scripture and changing our tone of voice will go a long way.
“When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” (Leviticus 19:33 – 34)
Consensus could come around the need to deal with the immediate human crisis.
There is a human reality right in front of our noses. There are thousands of children of undocmented immigrants who don’t sleep at night because they are afraid of losing their father or mother; other thousands have already lost their father or mother. Someday heroic books will be written about them. Right now, they are hurting and hurting, at a developmental moment which keeps on hurting them. They are children. Jesus had a way of being present to real people. He was especially concerned about the children.
Tags: catholic church, immigration, national association of evangelicals, sanctuary
