Immigration: An Evangelical Approach

An interesting take from www.vdare.com about an evangelical view of immigration.

Immigration: An Evangelical Approach

[Peter Brimelow writes: For some reason, it is much easier to get Catholic immigration reformers to write about their faith and their preferred policy, even though it means arguing with their bishops. But recently Jim Antle wrote about Methodists and here Rev. Barnwell offers an Evangelical perspective.]

By Bill Barnwell

The mainstream Christian Right has long been divided on the issue of immigration. Since Evangelical Protestants view the Scriptures as the basis for their worldview, both sides appeal to the Bible to support their position. Christianity Today has run several pieces recently, featuring different angles on the Evangelical response to the immigration crisis. [For example, On Immigration Issue, Big Evangelical Groups Conspicuously Mum, G. Jeffrey Macdonald, January 20, 2006]
The debate raises several questions: How do Evangelicals reach their divergent opinions? Is there any hope of a consensus on what the Bible “really” says on this issue for 21st century Americans? Is the Bible even a valid source for evangelical immigration debates?
While the Scriptures do not directly address this modern policy debate, there certainly are some overriding Biblical principles that can help a Christian reach a conclusion. I believe that while Christians who support mass immigration may be well-intentioned, they are simply missing the mark by overlooking some key facts both in the Biblical text and in the modern debate.
First, it must be pointed out that current political and social conditions are very different than in Biblical times. The nation-state as it exists today does not reflect the ancient kingdoms of Israel or Judah, or the Roman Empire of the New Testament.
After the Israelites left Egypt, they settled in the land of Canaan and functioned as a theocracy. There was no king, and most surrounding people groups belonged to what we would basically call “city-states.” Eventually the nations of Israel and Judah became established states with their own kings (the unified kingdom split after Solomon).

The book of Deuteronomy makes provisions for the selection of a king (I Deut. 17:14-20). One of the instructions was that the king himself be from the Israelite community. The people were instructed not to put a foreigner over themselves.

Likewise, after the Israelites returned to their land from national exile, they were forbidden by their priestly leaders from intermarrying with foreign persons (Ezra 9).
The appeal here in the Old Testament is not one of racial purity, but spiritual purity. Foreigners were indeed allowed into the Israelite community. Ruth the Moabite is a prime example of this.
These instructions were given when the Israelites were under the Old Testament law and were to be a holy people, set apart. They were not to conform to wicked customs, morals, and religious beliefs of the Canaanites, Hittites, Ammonites, etc. The Israelites were supposed to be a shining city on a hill to which the rest of the world would take notice and ideally worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This was part of the promise to Abraham, the father of Israel, when God told him, “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” ( Gen. 12:3).

According to the New Testament, this promise reached its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The first chapter in the New Testament spells this out by showing that Christ was the promised descendant of Abraham and David ( Matthew 1). Therefore, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).
So if the emphasis is not, in fact, on race and ethnicity, is there anything here that can be applied to the discussion of immigration? In short, yes.

As I’ve shown, the Israelites were supposed to welcome foreigners who believed in their spiritual ideals and wanted to freely become a part of the Israelite community. To speak anachronistically, they were not supposed to welcome foreigners who would come in and burn their flags and sing the national anthem of the Canaanites.

Christians, therefore, should be advocating an immigration policy that welcomes those who seek to willingly assimilate and become a part of their national culture and heritage.

Foreigners who became a part of the Israelite community were obligated to forsake their old ways and assimilate to their new culture. While for the Israelites this transformation was primarily spiritual, it surely carried many secular connotations as well. Christians should not have a racial focus, but a values focus.
However, Christians need to recognize that the purpose of immigration policy is not to invite more potential converts into our churches.
But what about highly spiritual illegal immigrants who come to America seeking a better life? Surely they should be welcomed into the American community with open arms, even if they break the law, correct?

Well, not so fast.
In general, the Bible supports the idea of obeying the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7). However, when the authorities are rebelling against God’s will ( Revelation 13), the Christian has the obligation to “obey God rather than men" ( Acts 5:29). We must ask ourselves then:
Is a nation-state protecting its borders and seeking to assimilate its citizens into its culture really engaging in an egregious offense against God?

Are these laws so offensive towards God that they permit a Christian to break American laws and thumb their noses at other foreign Christians who are seeking to enter the country legally?
Unless it can be proven that the law or authority in question is in direct violation of God’s revealed will, we cannot conclude that illegal immigrants (including Christian ones) are pursuing a righteous cause. Why is it seen as immoral or unfair for America to actually enforce its already lax standards on immigration? Immigration policy certainly does not rise to the level of an offense against God.

The biblical verses most commonly used by Christians who support liberal immigration laws appeal to the Israelites to treat fairly the “strangers in the land.” Leviticus 19:33-34 supports this notion: “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.”
[VDARE.COM note: Or in the King James Version: “If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” This gave John Higham the title of his famous book on nativism, still cited by many who do not realize he subsequently changed his mind.]

There are several ways in which these verses are misinterpreted:
First of all, these verses were most probably primarily referring to foreigners who sought to become a part of the Israelite community. It certainly cannot be referring to the pagans in the land who sought to lure the Israelites into sin and rebellion against God. Therefore, these passages were certainly not directed towards aliens who were breaking laws and causing mayhem in the community.
Second, these passages say nothing about modern democratic nation-states establishing their own guidelines about what is and isn’t the appropriate number of “aliens” living in their lands.
Third, is it treating an illegal alien unfairly by punishing him for breaking the law? When our own legal citizens clearly violate the law, are we being unjust as a society by punishing them? No. Rather, it is more unfair to the rest of the society when we ignore the rule of law and turn our heads away from the lawbreakers.
It is true that both the Old and New Testaments are very harsh in their assessment of those in God’s supposed community who turn a blind eye to the needy or permit social injustices. However, Christians who support mass immigration usually make two errors of judgment about this:
First, they assume that the Christians who want a more controlled immigration policy are the ones who are promoting a more unjust or faulty society.

The "injustice" contention has many problems outlined in such books as Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation and Pat Buchanan’s recent State of Emergency. There is plenty of evidence that both illegal immigration and mass legal immigration have created far more problems than benefits in society. This is evidence that some Evangelicals do not want to hear.

Secondly, immigration enthusiasts assume that restrictionists do not care about the welfare or well-being of illegal immigrants.
That is far from the case. Any person who calls himself a Christian should of course demonstrate love to the less fortunate both in word and deed. But there are other ways to love immigrants than sanctioning their law breaking. It takes more sacrifice for a Christian to do a short-term missions project or to donate financially towards impoverished areas of Mexico than it does for them to cheer on illegal immigration.
Rather than just applauding faceless illegals—whom they may never actually meet—Evangelicals would do better to actually meet these people where they are and donate their resources (time, money, etc) to help improve their lots in life. Christians could also support Mexican churches in their efforts to provide relief to their countrymen and women.
Whatever route is chosen—and there are plenty of other possibilities—we should not act as if the only way to show love and compassion to immigrants is by promoting or condoning illegal behavior.
A grander goal for the global Christian community, and Americans on a whole, is to help impoverished Mexican communities empower themselves to better care for their hurting people. This of course takes more work and sacrifice than just promoting open borders.
The Evangelical must ask himself which side in this internal debate ultimately demands more love and sacrifice and is more closely aligned to the Scriptures.
It is hard for me to believe the side that promotes law breaking, and ignores the very real social problems and risks this entails, is doing more justice to Scriptural principles.

Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor and writer in Michigan. He holds both a Master of Ministry degree and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies degree from Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana. Visit his blog at www.billbarnwell.blogspot.com

Groups Plan NC Protest Against College Access for Illegal Immigrants

An action item from www.alipac.us about the controversy to allow illegal aliens into the North Carolina Community College system.

September 15, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE STATEWIDE AND NATIONAL RELEASE
CONTACT: ALIPAC,
WilliamG@alipac.us, (866) 703-0864
Several groups that represent that views of most North Carolinians who believe illegal aliens should not be allowed in our colleges are planning a protest in Raleigh on September 17 at 1PM outside of the Community College Executive Board meeting where appointees are expected to give illegal aliens access to NC Colleges. "Since people will not be allowed to speak at this meeting, we are protesting outside," said William Gheen. "Important decisions like these should be left to state and federal elected officials, not appointed bureaucrats. This board voting to allow illegal aliens access to our community colleges is against the wishes of a vast majority of NC citizens and is depriving us all of a voice and representation!" NC Community Colleges barred illegal aliens from attending in 2008, while Governor Beverly Perdue was a candidate and member of the Community College boards. NC state Attorney General Roy Cooper ruled that allowing illegal immigrants into our colleges violated Federal law. "Illegal aliens should not have access to any non-emergency taxpayer benefits," said William Gheen. "North Carolina is already infamous for giving so many licenses to illegals under Mike Easley. Now we are going to be infamous for giving them training for jobs that are illegal for them to hold and at a time when North Carolinians are rushing into these colleges for retraining during the bad economy." Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is a national group with over 25,000 national supporters. Other groups participating in the protest against the expected decision of the board to grant college access to illegal immigrants includes NC Listen, NC Voice, NC Freedom, Randy's Right Blog, NC Tea Party Revolution, and Triangle Conservatives! Members of the media are asked to let people know about this protest BEFORE it happens. The protest will happen outside of the building where the board will hold its meeting. Concerned members of the public that also feel illegal immigrants should not be allowed in NC Community colleges are asked to join the protest. Appropriate signs and flags welcome but not required. Media and protesters can join us this Thursday September 17 1-3PM at he corner of Jones and McDowell St. at 200 W Jones St, Raleigh, NC.


PROTEST INVITE AND DETAILS...
Several groups need your support to protest against illegal aliens being allowed into NC Community Colleges
Host: ALIPAC Americans for Legal Immigration PAC
Type: Causes -
Protest Price: Free
Date: Thursday, September 17, 2009 Time: 1:00pm - 3:00pm
Location: The corner of Jones and McDowell St. outside of the Executive Board of NC Community Colleges meeting Street: 200 W Jones St City/Town: Raleigh, NC Phone: 9197876009
Email: williamg@alipac.us
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) and several other pro-immigration enforcement groups such as NC Listen, NC Voice, Randy's Right Blog, NC Freedom, Triangle Conservatives, and NC Tea Party Revolution are holding a street protest against illegal aliens going to NC Colleges. Despite the fact that almost four out of five North Carolinians do not want illegal immigrants in our colleges, the Executive Board intends to reopen the doors of OUR community colleges to illegal aliens. We need the largest crowd we can quickly gather to join us to protest and to speak out for the true majority.
1. Spread the word.
2. Show up.
3. Bring signs and appropriate flags.
Organizers will have extra signs and flags on hand for you if needed. The most important thing is to BE THERE! Please RSVP here and contact the NC Community College Executive Board members to express your desire for illegal aliens to be kept out of the NC Colleges (which is the current policy) using this contact info for the board 919.807.6969 or sullinsr@nccommunitycolleges.edu
List of Board Members at... http://www.nccommunitycolleges.edu/State_Board/members.htm

Special Note: This event if for Americans of every race and political party that feel illegal aliens should not have access to taxpayer resources. We hold the permits for this rally and any opposition groups or individuals or groups that do not share our non racist positions will be removed from our protest area.
NEEDED: People, American Flags, Patriotic Flags, Signs Against Illegal Immigration. (Not required, just get there with us) Sign Suggestions "Honk If You Oppose Illegal Aliens in NC Colleges", "No Taxpayer Benefits for Illegals", "Focus on American Families First", "Stop Welcoming Illegal Aliens to NC", "Illegals KEEP OUT!" etc... Please honk your car horn in support of our protesters on your way to this event. If you cannot join us on the ground, drive by and honk your horn in support!

More details in today's Press Release from ALIPAC
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-170964.html
and added to homepage
http://www.alipac.us/article4513.html

Action Alert:Tell your Congressman to support Joe Wilson

Here is an Action Alert from www.redstate.com encouraging support for Congressman Joe Wilson!

Call your Congressman right now.

Tell him to stand up for Joe Wilson and oppose any punishment for Joe.
If you Congressman refuses to or won't commit to standing up for Joe Wilson, tell him he needs to be consistent and punish Charlie Rangel and John Murtha.

Get the phone number to call and basic information by clicking here.

Sen. Susan Collins (R, ME) rejects trigger for ‘public option.’ [UPDATE: Sen Snowe rejects public option]

A very interesting story from www.redstate.com These were two of the three senate Republicans that voted for the stimulus. The third was Arlen Spector who is no longer a Republican. Congratulations to these two Maine Senators for joining the rest of the Republicans on this!!!

Sen. Susan Collins (R, ME) rejects trigger for ‘public option.’ [UPDATE: Sen Snowe rejects public option]
Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)

(via @seanhackbarth) For the very commonsense reason that you can’t trust the people who would be pulling the trigger. No, really: that’s what she said.
A moderate Republican who has previously broken with her party to support President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill said Sunday that she does not support the idea of using a so called “trigger” on the public health insurance option as part of health care reform legislation.
Asked on CNN’s State of the Union if the use of the trigger would make inclusion of the public option more acceptable, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, unequivocally replied “no.”

“The problem with trigger is it just delays the public option,” Collins told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, “because the people who are going to be making the determination about whether the market is competitive enough, want the public option.”
Note that this doesn’t mean that Sen. Olympia Snowe is going to take the same position (although it doesn’t mean that she’ll be taking a different one, either); but Sen. Collins’ position on this does make it clear that the ‘public trigger’ scenario for a government option in health care is not actually bipartisan. Please also note that Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D, NH) apparently needed only eight months as a Senator to forget how to answer straightforward questions in a straightforward manner:
New Hampshire Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen refused to answer directly when asked whether Collins’ position indicated that President Obama should either not fight for inclusion of the public option in the final bill or, alternatively, pursue a legislative strategy that relied solely on Democratic votes for health care reform.

Again: no, really.
KING: Well, Senator Shaheen, let me come back to you. Senator Collins says she can’t support even a trigger.
So does the president have to make a decision? If a moderate Republican voice like Senator Collins, who is known to try to deal with Democrats, who voted for the stimulus — if she can’t support a trigger, does the president — has two choices, one, give it up, or two, do this with all Democrats. What should he do?
SHAHEEN: Well, first of all, I think that we’re going to have a bill that has significant bipartisan input, regardless of how the votes come out.
The bill that came out of the health committee in the Senate had 167 Republican-sponsored amendments that were adopted. So there has been significant Republican input already into the legislation.

And, you know, I think — I think we can do what Senator Collins would like to see us do, what others in the Senate have said they would like to see, with a bipartisan bill.
We can lower costs. We can improve health outcomes. Senator Collins and I have legislation that I think is going to get incorporated into the Finance Committee bill that would lower Medicare costs for people who are hospitalized. We know that a number of them go back into the hospital within 90 days. We can reduce that number. We can save $5,000 per Medicare patient. We can make them healthier. And those are the kinds of improvements we want to get into any health care bill.
And read that to see a truly entertaining comment from Sen. Collins about why the President has been losing independents.
Moe Lane
Crossposted to Moe Lane.

[UPDATE] Oh, it gets better.
Via Drudge:
Snowe Urges Obama to Drop Public Plan to Pass Health Overhaul
Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine said there is “no way” a health-care overhaul that includes a public option can pass the Senate.
Snowe, one of six negotiators on the Senate Finance Committee, said that to gain more Republican support, President Barack Obama should explicitly drop the idea of a federally backed insurance program to compete with private insurers such as Hartford, Connecticut-based Aetna Inc.
[snip]
“I’ve urged the president to take the public option off the table,” Snowe said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” program. “It’s universally opposed by Republicans,” Snowe said.
Call me nuts, but it sounds like the Democrats just ran out of possible Republicans to give them cover. Guess they’re going to have to run over their own moderates to pass this health care rationing bill, then. Hey, do you know what would make currently-unhappy Republican grassroots activists smile more at their ostensible Senators? Why, those Senators shutting down the government on procedural grounds in response to the Democrats trying to ram through health care rationing via reconciliation.
www.redstate.com