My Four Walls’ sometimes commenter and blogger chris monroe had this great post about yesterday’s protest…
Shouldn’t Forgiveness Figure into the Illegal Immigration Debate?:
This will certainly go down as one of the most memorable May Day’s in our nation’s history, as hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and sympathizers walk out of their jobs and peaceably march in protest against pending immigration law reform efforts currently underway.
CNN’s Larry King poignantly raised the question during his broadcast today: “Since we are a Judeo-Christian nation, shouldn’t we be talking about forgiveness in all of this?”
And so, what role SHOULD forgiveness play in the national debate over illegal immigration? Should those presently on this side of the border illegally be forgiven and allowed to stay, earning their citizenship? Should business owners be forgiven for their illegal hiring practices? Should certain staunch nationalists be forgiven for their racist rhetoric and actions?
As people of faith, how should we respond?
Right on. And another thing…an elder from my church made this point Sunday night: the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time were incredibly law-driven. One of the main themes of Jesus’ whole ministry was to challenge the law-based approach to life and faith. What does it mean when a wealthy “Christian nation” is more concerned with legality and economic consequences than with compassion and generosity?
I wonder what this immigration stuff here in America looks like to the Mexican government. What an easy way to deal with problems, just let go and let someone else worry about it.
Are we being generous to a nation, or should we focus on the real problems of world trade and economics that allow a country like mexico to develop, instead of taking care of their problems as if they don’t exist.
i think America should be a haven for the refugee and wanderer, but where does global accountability play in, both on our side and mexico’s side.
If we open our borders what does that say to the world, and if we close them what does that say?
This isn’t a matter of the good samaritan nor turning the other cheek, but a matter of turning of the tables of an unjust system both here and there.
Shouldn’t we adopt Mexican laws on immigration? LOL
Perhaps, since no real border exists, the US should annex Mexico as several new states?
The REAL reason that we have an illegal immigration problem is that this country is economically thriving. There is little work in Mexico and the Mexican government does little for their own. One of the biggest reason illegal immigrants can find work here is because employers dodge paying taxes so they prefer the illegal immigrant. If we made all the illegals legal, most would immediately be out of a job and the once-illegal workforce would require welfare. Employrs would look for the illegal again to avoid the increased cost to pay the overhead in taxes.
We have laws for a reason. The reason why it should take a while to become a citizen is to acclimate to the culture (and language) here. Most other countries do the same. We as a country need Americans not Mexicans (or any other culture) living in America. If not, their allegiance is not to this country but to their country of origin.
At the personal level, we could sponsor an illegal to help them become legal, but then again, if employers are permitted to continue to hire illegals to avoid taxes, we could be working to put them out of work.
I have no problem FORGIVING those here if and only if:
1. We stop employers from hiring illegals using enforcement.
2. Enforce the border by either building a wall or increasing the border patrol.
3. Easing immigration laws.
People have some sort of aversion to building a wall. I don’t. A border, by definition, IS a wall.
Borders are so twentieth century. But then again, so are nations. Both become a little more irrelevant every day.
Welcome to the global economy, friends. I vote for free trade on forgiveness, mercy, and grace.
my question, richie, is still how do we respond as christians? your answers has a lot of ideas and politics, but little biblical basis.
“We have laws for a reason.”
the pharisees and romans had laws for a reason too, but jesus defied them both. i’m pretty sure it takes longer to become a citizen in the US than anywhere else in the world (on average close to 10 years). this is because the process is flawed and it also exploits people trying to become citizens (the average cost is i think close to $10,000).
“A border, by definition, IS a wall.”
who invented these borders anyway? i agree with daniel. we are trying to enforce a model for global society that no longer has relevance and will eventually cause more problems. the border (illegal immigration) is not the problem. just like global terrorism is not the problem. they are both the symptom of something else.
I find it ironic that much of the religious/political right wants America to “return to it’s roots,” to once again become a “Christian nation” like the forefathers wanted it, just as long as that means closed borders.
Closed borders is not Christian and is not what the forefathers wanted, b/c they were illegals too!
I personally could not more adamantly disagree concerning borders today. With crazy religious zealots wanting to kill innocent people, we would be derelict…no… we would be abetting those who wish to do so.
I don’t know who the ‘religious right’ is. That is a political term used to broad-brush conservative Christians. I am conservative but in NO WAY represent the descriptions regurgitated in the press. The illegal immigrant issue crosses all walks of life and colors of faith. Making it a ‘religious right’ issue is reminiscent of something JFK said, “What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists – is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.”
It is easy to sit back, interpret the Bible, and tell others what they should do. Using Christ, Ghandi, etc as our examples, if one feels strongly about a cause or what they think is the ‘Christian thing to do’, the most effective action is to lead by example. One could sponsor an illegal immigrant, teach ESL, give money to those organizations that could help, volunteer, etc.
My point is that there must always be two considerations, long term and short term. I have presented both. But remember, in whatever you decide, use your heart to move you to action, use your head in deciding what to do.
My father once told me a story. He was a medic in WWII. He saw a lot of death. I am still amazed at how he remained (or maybe even turned into) a gentle and loving spirit. He is dead now. He told me in WWII when they came into Germany they liberated a concentration camp. Their knee-jerk reaction was to feed the starved prisoners BUT that would have killed them.
i understand your passion richie. i can tell this is an issue close to your heart. i don’t think joe or anyone here is doing what you feel the media does to conservatives or conservative christians.
“With crazy religious zealots wanting to kill innocent people, we would be derelict (to do so)”
i think this issue in regards to border security is exaggerated… but i don’t have anything off the top of my head to back it up. i do question our whole notion of security. i don’t think it’s a christian ideal. we are secure in God, but we are called aliens in this world.
i would also point us back to scripture. the original question is how we should, as christians, respond. what does the Bible say about this? i think it says a lot so i would like to explore scripture concerning this issue.
“What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists – is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.” JFK
So, those opposed to immigration are intolerent extremists, whose cause of closing the borders is not as evil as what they are saying about the immigrants.
joe… you’re such an instigator. but good point.
The Old Testament, when examined overall, would certainly not provide much of a theology of globalization (for lack of a better term), but indeed quite the opposite, with its emphasis on God’s chosen people, etc. Obviously in Christ we know that there is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, so I’m not trying to provide a theology for the opposing side. But I do think that if you consider God’s overall interaction with men and nations throughout the Bible, the theological conclusion would have to be ambivalent.
I would also point out that the term “anti-immigration” does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, Joe, and I find it offensive to be lumped into a group that includes hate-mongers with whom I definitely do NOT share beliefs in common. Thanks for your tolerance.
If illegal immigrants should be allowed to ignore any border on a national level, why would they or should they be forced to recognize any borders of a smaller scale, such as lines marking personal property? Who is prepared to cede some or all of their property to an immigrant if he finds one claiming squatter’s rights? I half-jest, yet I believe that there is a valid point in there somewhere as well.
i went back and re-read the comments peter and i don’t even see anyone using “anti-immigration”.
“The Old Testament, when examined overall, would certainly not provide much of a theology of globalization (for lack of a better term), but indeed quite the opposite, with its emphasis on God’s chosen people, etc.”
even in the OT with Israel being God’s chosen people the teaching is that the alien/immigrant/illegal is to be welcomed. time and again in the OT it is the alien/immigrant who is honored above God’s “chosen people”.
“Who is prepared to cede some or all of their property to an immigrant if he finds one claiming squatter’s rights?”
doesn’t jesus teach us to do just that? why are we so afraid to actually engage the Bible on these issues? i think it’s because it’s more difficult and makes us uncomfortable.
sorry, I meant “opposed to immigration.” That is in there.
The OT speaks to two areas concerning aliens (if one chooses to believe these particular passages). The first area is treating aliens with fairness and the second was in the area of naturalization (circumscision to be precise…ouch!).
The problem today with illegals is that it is not fair. Illegals have more rights in many areas than US citizens. There are an estimated 5% illegals that we must treat fairly but there are also those other 95% of US citizens that must also be treated fairly. It is also not fair to those who immigrated legally, those who learned the language and obeyed the law.
Also, illegals are not naturualized by definition, another problem.
The concensus today is that the whole situation is out of hand and in a
post-911 world we need to change it. IMHO we need better enforcement and we need a more streamlined way for aliens to become a legal citizen. However, I will never support the later until the former is instituted.
I have a problem with taking Christ’s teachings outside the personal level and making them political. Why? Because above the personal level, your action affects other people. For example, let’s say a squatter comes in and sets up on some property. Sure let’s give it to them! Ooops, we just evicted another family.
If a family needed a home, would you give them yours and send your wife and child to the street while you still pay on your house? It is admirable but it also hurts those in your charge. It is one thing to give up your cloak when someone takes your shirt. It is altogether different giving up someone else’s cloak. So applying what Christ said past the one-on-one level is a sort of extrapolation that becomes errant in my opinion.
so you’re saying richie that christian teachign has nothing to do with the communal or social? what about “who is my neighbor?” and the parable of the good samaritan to name a couple?
do you really believe that jesus’ teaching only apply to the personal and nor the social (which is what the political is)? i don’t think you can hold that stance very long in the face of a lot of scripture.
hey what was this line about richie? “if one chooses to believe these particular passages” was it a jab at us radical relativists?
or what you were really thinking… you radical relativist!!
Aha you DID get it!
I think his teachings can apply to both the personal level and at the community level, but it is dangerous to extrapolate to the community level. Judas in my opinion made that mistake in that he thought that Christ’s Messianic mission was a socio-political one not one of salvation.
When we act at the personal level, the
community will follow, not the other way around.
okay granted your last statement is true, then i think we can also make some statements about how the christian life is lived out in the socio-political arena.
i guess i understand your hesitation, but i’m not trying to say jesus was a capitalist or communist. i think he transcends any political or economic systems, and so should the way we follow him in the social sphere.
i still think scripture speaks clearly about how we act in the social sphere and specifically towards foreigners and strangers in our land. this has little to nothing to do with politics (even though it will affect the world around us) and everything to do with how we should live out our faith in regards to those around us (including and maybe especially illegal immigrants, the poor, etc.)
I had a thought about this…
Many evangelicals are against homosexual marriage out of principles extrapolated from thier faith. Therefore, they want the government to support thier principle by making gay marriage illegal.
Now, the Christian faith must take in immigrants (whether legal or illegal) according to principle, unless they don’t take the teachings of Jesus serious about loving neighbors, and protecting the voiceless. But we are to keep our principles seperate in this issue from the state?
There is not really seperation of church and state, there is accomodation of the state by the church. The church wants the state to do certain things (to accomodate), but not others. Then when it comes to hard issues that Jesus was serious about, loving neighbors, standing againnst injustice, etc than let’s just make that personal to protect the state.
I don’t now if i was making my point very clear, but i think we must have continuity about what we want the state to accomplish and when we push our principles off on the state.
Joe,
Many non-evangelicals (and secularists) are against homosexual marriage too. For most, homosexual relationships are also against nature (‘the plumbing ain’t right’) not just the Bible. (BTW, gay marriage is illegal.)
Christians do take in immigrants. In fact, the US has historically been the leader in immigration. It are those that enter illegally that are the problem. It is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION that is the problem not immigration. The press (and apparantly most opposed to the current administration) want to label it as an immigration problem and not an ILLEGAL immigration problem.
There has been and always will be that fuzzy line between the church and the state. For example, many want the state to adopt charity (historically a church responsibility).
I think you make youself pretty clear and I agree with you concerning what we want the state to do.
My (very conservative) response to the gay partner issue is to create another institution of a contract relationship between two same-sex people, but don’t call it marriage.
Maybe the problem, then, is what we have term as “illegal”
Certainly the first immigrants to the country would have been illegals according to the current laws. Maybe, we need to revisit how one becomes an illegal, and it should not be as injust, allowing only those who can afford it.
Overrall, then I would say the problem is with immigration, because who’s to say what has been set to become legal is fair…the american gov’t. fair? uhm?
i dont think that ceasar was a fair man….yet Christ said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
Welcome back mjl, good point.
gracias mi amigo!
[...] Shouldn’t Forgiveness Figure into the Illegal Immigration Debate? [...]
yes i would say that forgiveness needs to figure into the illegal immigration debate. BOTH sides need to beg the other for forgiveness and ultimately we all need to beg for forgiveness from our LORD…then we need to repent!
we first need to figure out who the ones are that need to ask for forgiveness and who the ones are that need to forgive due to sinning against one another.
the best way to achieve this is to define what the problems (sins) are before discussing forgiveness. without a common agreement concerning what the problems (sins) are i don’t believe that we can effectively move forward.
an example of our apparent lack of agreement on this issue is it appears (that is according to my understanding of various posts here) (illegal) immigrants have not committed any offenses.
if that is the case then shouldn’t we, as u.s. citizens, be the only ones begging for forgiveness?…i would say no.
until common ground on our definition of the problem (sins committed) is established your question can not be answered properly.
this is besides the point, but do we really need to “beg” for forgiveness? grace is amazing.
Now back on track:
Just because immigrants may commit an offense, that offense may not be a sin. The laws could be unjust. Did MLK jr. sin when he fought against unjust laws? Did rosa parks sin by sitting on the front of the bus? HELL NO!!!
So, let’s not call it sin for breaking laws that were created by men, who descended from immigrants that did the exact same thing our “illegal” immigrants are doing now. Except, of course, their descendents committed mass genocide and slavery.
Joe> “this is besides the point, but do we really need to “beg” for forgiveness? grace is amazing.”
if one is truly repentant…yes.
Joe> there is no need to get your self worked up here.
to answer your question, no mlk jr. did not sin because he did not break any laws (that im aware of) and neither did mrs parks.
if you break a law then yes you do sin.
Joe> “let’s not call it sin for breaking laws that were created by men who descended from immigrants that did the exact same thing our “illegal” immigrants are doing now.”
im not responsible for what my forefathers did and neither are you. i am responsible for what i do and so are you. so i WILL call it sin for breaking the laws created by men.
again i refer to the very words of Christ “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” it is very clear.
Joe> “this is besides the point, but do we really need to “beg” for forgiveness? grace is amazing.”
i would like to clarify my statement further.
the reason that grace is truly amazing is because when we realize just how spiritually bankrupt we are, we are forced to see just how righteous He is (or vice versa) we WILL beg.
Him accepting our cry for forgiveness IS amazing.
why should He forgive us? why should He desire to show us affection. the only worth that we have is worth in Him, after all we are just dust, we are less than dust. again THAT is amazing.
If breaking a law created by man for the sake of man is considered a sin, then how is there ever room for standing up to injustice? All of the sudden God is squarely on the side of the politicians in ALL MATTERS, even matters of human sinfulness. Sinful humans make laws, so I can’t just accept the fact that breaking ANY law counts as a sin, as if God has perfectly put that law in place. If a law is consistent with Biblical and Christian ethics, then perhaps it might be a sin to break it. But if a law is just a law made by a politician, and if that law is unjust or unfair, I can’t say that breaking it is necessarily a sin. This isn’t necessarily about immigration. This is a matter of how ready we are to equate our lawmakers with God.
And by the way…on an immigration note, half of all illegal immigrants came into the country legally. Visas are complicated, not all of them lead to citizenship, the language barrier hurts the situation – I’m just pointing out that the undocumented population isn’t just made up of people illegally crossing the border. This is an important thing to remember, especially when we are talking about terrorism and fear, and talking about the merits (or lack thereof) of “sealing the border.” Immigration is more complicated than just categorizing people into two groups: those who jump the fence and those who don’t.
Melissa, I think you are right to show how murky the situation is when it comes to dealing with just and unjust laws. Scripture (as usual) provides ammunition for both sides. We are told to pray for our leaders, those whom God has placed in authority over us, which could be used by some to argue a fatalistic acceptance of whatever situation men find themselves in. Such a conclusion is certainly unbalanced, in my opinion. On the other hand, there are several examples in the Bible where God uses rulers, sets them in authority, specifically to have them overthrown by His chosen servants or people. In Jeremiah, God repeatedly refers to Nebuchadnezzar as “his servant” through whom He judged and punished Israel. Long-term, though, once God was through judging His covenant people, He returned His favor toward them and against the Babylonian empire. God used Pharoah in a similar way (though not really as an instrument of judgment). He gave pharoah power and rule only so that later he could be made an example of. How do we respond to our leaders? Tricky business indeed . . .
Yeah…Luther’s theology muddies the waters as well. He uses the commandment “Honor thy father and mother” to talk about how the offices of our earthly governments and authorities are put there by God to keep order in our fallen and temporal world, and that even if the people in those offices are corrupt or unjuust, the offices themselves are still good. I’m not sure what he would think about the sinfulness of breaking a civil law, though. So complicated!
I agree Melissa. There are times we need to stand against the law. However, asking immigrants to naturalize is not unfair, in fact I would argue that it is biblical (non-Jews had to be circumcised). Yes, the process needs to be re-looked to streamline it. Working for the government for a while, I have found one thing you can almost bet your life on and that is that laws are created because someone tried to cheat (unfairness) the system. Therefore, in an effort to be fair, the government creates laws so that everyone is treated equally the same. Allowing illegals to bypass the system is unfair to the citizens of this country as well as those who did so legally.
I see a big difference between injustice and unfairness. Life is not fair. Sure we would like it to be, but it is not. Some are more motivated, talented, endowed, born in a good country, etc. Something is unjust when a basic human right is violated (fair trial, theft, murder, etc).
My problem in the arguments for unabated illegal immigration is that some see it as unjust because they see their condition as unfair. They want this country to accept all illegal immigrants as citizens. There is a price to pay in both culture and resources. It is an easy decision for those who don’t have to pay the price. It doesn’t affect their lives. However, those who must deal with the impact are left holding the bag. So, in an effort to treat something that is unfair, the pro-illegal immigration group wants everyone to pay (resources, time, culture). That in my opinion is not only unfair but unjust (theft). Although noble and kind as the idea might be, forcing others to do something that one thinks is fair is reminiscent of the caricatures of the “religious right’.
What I believe is fair and just is to convince people at the personal level. Allow Christ to change their hearts, and you won’t need government to fix what you perceive is unjust. It will happen. So, instead of marching in the streets, we should spread Christ through example and day-to-day contact. It requires patience and faith both of which I can always need more of….
Governments have changed since the Bible and Luther.
The people have more say in what happens. We are sort of our own kings in that we can vote. We therefore can affect things through our votes individually and corporately (in the case of certain political blocs for example: democrat, republican, NCAACP, Christian Coalition, NEA, NRA, PTA…LOL).
i’m pretty sure both MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks broke laws. That’s why they got thrown in jail.
culture is organic, and naturalization is a process. The children of imigrants usually naturalize, and bring with them a culture that makes ours richers, and does not detract. To say culture is in jeopordy is to ignore that our entire culture is a hodgpodge of imigrant cultures.
now, I am not argueing for open borders, but sending the illegal immigrant population home is just not feesible, and perhaps unjust (what do you do with all the children, who are american citizens, whose parents would be deported?)
Richie, can you explain a little more on how resources will be effected? do you mean jobs? natural resources?
perhaps amnesty isn’t the best answer, but neither is a closed border with a big wall.
illegals and legal populations have helped this country grow, and done the jobs none of the ‘native’ population wanted to do. Levels have never been outlandesh, but there has always been worry about being overrun, whether by jews, irish, germans, mexicans…what ever.
perhaps the imigration process should be made easier, streamlined. More work visas, public transport paid for by both Mexico and America shuttling workers to and from work in host country and home country. Something that provides the work they want and need, but doesn’t open up the borders like a flood gate. The Christian approach I believe would be inclusive. No one is asking you to give up your land or home, just open up your dinner table for a guest.
lucas i wont argue with you on whether or not they were arrested for breaking the law. like i inferred i dont know for sure.
i would like to state that i believe that there ARE instances when breaking the law is acceptable. i believe that these instances are acceptable when a law is made that is clearly in opposition to clear Biblical teaching (daniel 6:1-16).
my point still remains. if they knowingly(illegal immigrants) break the law, and the law does not contradict clear Biblical teaching, then yes i believe that it is sinning.
i like luthers view…romans 13, daniel 2:21,1 pt 2:13-25,heb 13:17 etc…
keep in mind at no point have i said that i agree with ALL laws. however i AM commanded to submit to them. if i dont agree with them then i can peacefully go about attempting to change them.
Gary,
I am not against immigration. I think our laws need to be relaxed. However, the following I believe should be mandatory before one should be made a citizen; learn English, learn how our government works (civics), and swear allegiance to the country.
After watching video footage of the legal/illegal immigration protest day, it was painfully obvious that those protesting were predominantly pro-Mexico, not pro-American.
So far as resources, I was talking about medical clinics and welfare meant for our poor and indigent. Several facilities I know of in Arizona closed because of the burden placed on them by illegals. In my opinion, this is unfair to those for whom these services were meant.
richie,
you already have to learn those things to become citizens.
Richie,
I apologize. I didn’t think you were against immigration. I was just refering to, “There is a price to pay in both culture and resources.”
Gary,
I didin’t think you did. I wanted to be clear.
Yes, I know tat too Lucas, but given the current out-of-control immigration situation, clean amnesty I could not support, but in the congresses deliberations, a naturalization process for those already here should be mandatory.
The age-old pesky U.S.-Mexico border problem has taxed the resources of both countries, led to long lists of injustices, and appears to be heading only for worse troubles in the future. Guess what? The border problem can never be solved. Why? Because the border IS the problem! It’s time for a paradigm change.
Never fear, a satisfying, comprehensive solution is within reach: the Megamerge Dissolution Solution. Simply dissolve the border along with the failed Mexican government, and megamerge the two countries under U.S. law, with mass free 2-way migration eventually equalizing the development and opportunities permanently, with justice and without racism, and without threatening U.S. sovereignty or basic principles.
Click the url and read about the new paradigm for U.S.-Mexico relations.