Illegal Immigration

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, temptest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! –Statue of Liberty plaque

Few issues in modern American culture raise more ethical questions than this heated discussion about illegal immigration. There are many sides to many questions making this one of the most complicated conversations in American politics and life. One serious study noted, “Few subjects are so fraught with misinformation and lack of information, complexity and paradox, political interest and governmental neglect, social concern and human callousness, careful economic analysis and fiscal incertitude.” In light of this overwhelming conundrum, it would be wise for all sides to be thoughtful and not hasty as we formulate our suggestions to solve this knotty problem. Those who are Bible- believing Christians must bring to the table the teachings of God‟s Word so that, in the final analysis, the proposed solutions will truly be a Christian response to immigration reform and not just a collection of political platitudes based upon preconceived notions. [It is important to realize that there are two paradigms for the Christian to look through: the government’s role, and the Christian/church’s role. These two roles will probably differ in how they will deal with illegal immigration.]

[A country has a right to protect its people and, thus, protect its borders. No nation ‘has’ to allow other people groups in, per se. Being a member of a society is not a rite but a priviledge. If we don’t have borders, we don’t have countries.]

Three viewpoints

In very broad terms, there are three general responses to the issue of illegal immigration. First, the amnesty approach seeks to grant a general amnesty to all or almost all illegal immigrants in the United States. In other words, these advocates want to pardon illegal immigrants now in the country. Most of those who hold this view also favor liberalized policies for future legal immigration. Adherents of such a position are sometimes labeled by opponents as “open-border enthusiasts.” [A key motivator for this ‘side’ is to grant these ‘illegals’ citizenship and have them vote… vote for the pro-immigration / pro-welfare party…which is the Democrats.]

Second, the restrictive approach wants immigration laws in the United States enforced. Usually proponents argue that illegal immigrants should be arrested and/or deported. They should not be allowed to share in the benefits that legal persons (immigrants or natives) in this country enjoy. Many of those who hold this view also favor conservative policies and stronger restrictions for future immigration. One advocate of this would be former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. He argues that “dying populations and immigrant invasions imperil our country and civilization.” However, some in this camp would favor an increase of legal immigration into the United States.

Third, the partial amnesty approach attempts to deal with illegal immigrants with a kind of middle ground between general amnesty and the restrictive approach. It often argues that the largeness of the problem prohibits the deportation of all illegal immigrants. Conservative estimates of illegal immigrants range from eight to twenty million. This view sees itself as being realistic about the law enforcement problem. On the other hand, it also attempts to regulate the movement of illegals toward citizenship status through recognition of wrong-doing indicated by fines along with incentives toward assimilation. It is, in essence, an attempt to verbalize respect for law with a compassionate spirit toward the illegal immigrants. While many plans of this kind exist, the most well-known is President Bush‟s guest worker program. On the one hand, it has been hailed by some conservatives as the giving of general amnesty and trifling with the law. On the other hand, it has been called by some liberals “indentured servitude.”

Stats

A total of 1,063,732 persons legally immigrated to the United States in 2002.

Sixty-five percent of these settled in the following six states: California 291,216; New York 114,827; Florida 90,819; Texas 88,365; New Jersey 57,721; and Illinois 47,235.

Five countries accounted for 40 percent of immigrants: Mexico 219,380; India 71,105; The People’s Republic of China 61,282; Philippines 51,308; and Vietnam 33,627.

Illegals in America: 1980 @ 3 million 1996 @ 5 million 2000 @ 8.4 million 2010 @ 11.2 million

This, added to the 6.4 million children born to immigrants living in the USA, accounts for almost 70% of the US population growth in the past decade.

Some estimate the total yearly cost burden to America in dealing with illegal aliens is about 600 billion dollars!

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 40 million immigrants resided in the United States in 2010, which is the highest number in history. Furthermore, 13.9 million immigrants have come to the U.S. since 2000 making the 10 years from 2000 to 2010 the highest decade of immigration in U.S. history. Immigration to the United States is the primary force behind population growth, and if our current immigration laws are not changed, the population of the U.S. will grow from its current 312 million to 439 million by the year 2060.

The Heritage Foundation issued two studies in 2007 pointing out that the big problem with mass legalization is that (a) most illegal aliens are low-skilled and therefore do not earn enough money to pay enough taxes to cover the government benefits they receive; and (b), amnesty would eventually make them eligible for the full array of welfare and medical benefits offered by local, state and federal governments. They found the cost of allowing illegal aliens to remain in the United States, and eventually to become citizens, would be $3.7 trillion through the year 2056. That works out to a present cost of $1 trillion, at a 5 percent discount rate. In other words, immediately upon passage of an amnesty bill, the United States government would need to put $1 trillion into an investment earning 5 percent per year if it were honest about paying for the costs of amnesty

The cost of amnesty: $1 Trillion
The cost of attrition by enforcement: as little as $14 billion.
Amnesty would cost up to 70 times as much as enforcing existing law.

(Numbersusa.org)

Where did all these nations come from?

Nations were first established by God as a judgment in Genesis 11. Remember the Tower of Babel story? It seems there was a man named Nimrod who attempted to set up the first world government and the first false religion.

After the Flood, God decreed that man should scatter across the whole earth and be fruitful and multiply. But, about 100 years later, a large contingent of men, under the leadership of Nimrod, whose very name means “let us revolt or rebel,” decided they would settle in Shinar and build a tower to make a name for themselves. God foiled this plan by scattering them around the world and creating new languages among the new nations that were thus established.

Make no mistake about it: Nation-states are an invention of the Creator – a deliberately chosen device to serve His purposes.

Genesis 11:1,6-8 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

God has designed the boundaries for the nations:

Ac 17:26-27 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Ultimately, the purpose of God having nation-states seems to be to restrain Satan’s efforts at creating his kingdom on earth. That will happen eventually – only when God Himself permits it in His timing, as shown in Revelation 17:17:

For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

 

Old Testament Teaching on the Stranger

One starting point for biblical discussion of the issue of illegal immigrants is the Old Testament teaching about the stranger among the Israelites. There are several statements that command a caring attitude and corresponding actions relative to any such foreigner among the people. The gleaning of the harvest was not to be done but left for the “needy and the stranger” (Lev. 19:9; cp. Ruth). It was wrong for any Israelite to oppress or vex any stranger in the land (Ex. 22:1-2). The Israelites were reminded that God brings justice for the orphan and the widow while He gives food and clothing to the stranger (Deut. 10:18; cp. Ps. 146:9). The command to the Israelites to love aliens in their midst because they [(Israel)] were once strangers in the land of Egypt (Deut. 10:19). Jeremiah suggested that the men of Judah could retain their right to dwell in the land “if you do not oppress the alien, orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor walk after other gods to your own ruin” (see Jer. 7:5-8).

God promises judgment to those Israelites who “turn aside the [stranger]” – Mal 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.

There are some problems that arise if one attempts to do a direct application of these texts relative to the modern American situation. First, the United States does not have a covenant relationship with God as a nation in the same way that Israel does. Another problem is the fact that all of these passages deal with the stranger quite apart from the issue of whether he is in the land legally or illegally. [Thus, the O.T. teaches that Israel was to be kind to the ‘stranger’ who was in their land… it appears that that ‘stranger’ was in the land ‘legally’. So, there is no clear biblical statement for how a country is to deal with those that enter into their country illegally.

God and Racial Diversity

One of the most unpleasant sides to doing research on the question of illegal immigration into the United States can be found in the claims and counter-claims about racism. Is the opposition to illegal immigration (and maybe legal immigration) into the United States racially motivated for the most part due to a dislike of Latinos from south of our border? Is there a white supremacy or ethnocentricity at the core of opposition to illegal immigration? The answer to this question is complicated. Ellis Cose argues: “Is it possible to be a restrictionist without also being a racist? Is it possible to favor strong measures to prevent illegal immigration from Mexico without being driven by xenophobia? I believe it is. This position should not be branded as inherently racist. Many Hispanic Americans favor greater restrictions along the U.S./Mexico border. Some restrictionists maintain that the first responsibility of the United States is more effectively to open opportunities to its own people of color in the underclass rather than to expand further their numbers.”

[Those that hold the ‘restrictionist’ platform for immigration are often branded as racists.]

Immigration and Evangelism

Bible-believing Christians who currently live in America have an opportunity that many Christians never see. The foreign mission field is emerging all around us. The diversity that immigration brings can be seen in a positive light from the vantage point of the church‟s mission.

Christians can learn from the past. North American Protestants who opposed immigration in the late 1800s initially kept a distance from the immigrants. However, as time progressed they were forced to acknowledge the necessity of deliberate ministry to them, especially if they were going to maintain any Christian influence in the urban centers of the country. Slowly but surely the call to missions began to replace the tendency to separate.

[The NT] lays out clearly the transition from a racially limited ministry (“rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”—Matt. 10:6) to a Gentile mission encompassing all peoples (Matt. 13; 28:19-20). The latter describes the nature of ministry in the Church Age. Thus, if in the Providence of God, He has brought the world to our door, believers should have a measure of excitement when thinking about intentional evangelistic outreach to immigrants. Even if a believer holds to the restrictive view of immigration, he should still seek the opportunities to deal with the people whom God has sent. [Immigration, whether legal or illegal, is a blessing – for we Christians can evangelize the lost from other countries without ever having to go to their country… God has brought them to our front door step!]

[Some are being ‘alarmists’ in regards to this ‘crisis’ involving illegal immigration; is it really a crisis?] Arguments from some (not all) conservative and liberal restrictionists sound like this: “America is being overwhelmed at the present moment by millions of illegal immigrants. This has never happened before. We are in danger of losing our very way of life. Therefore, we must act quickly to deal with illegal immigrants and be strict regarding future immigration into the country.” Such statements do not bear any truth value unless they are strongly qualified.

On the face of things, the numbers are quite telling. The statistics from the U. S. Census Bureau show that there is currently one birth every 8 seconds, one death every 13 seconds, and one international migrant [illegally] entering the country every 27 seconds [(~ 1 Million/yr)] for a net gain of one person being added to the U.S. population every 11 seconds. These are the facts on the ground so to speak.

There were 4.3 million ‘legal’ immigrants in the U.S. from 1840 to 1860, which was 13.6% of the population.

If a high estimate is made of legal immigration into the United States over the last twenty years and added to the numbers for illegals, the percentage is around 13.3%, similar to the 1860 numbers. Therefore, it simply will not do to suggest that we are presently experiencing waves of immigration unseen of before when seen in this light. [Current immigration percentages are about the same as they were 150 years ago…~ 13% (legal & illegal).] This is not to diminish the significance of social, political, and legal problems related to the issue of illegal immigration.

Michael Barone in his book “The New Americans” points out that immigration has always been a major part of American life except for the period from 1924 to 1965 when the United States adopted a somewhat isolationist stance in the world. We must “discard the notion that we are at a totally new place in American history.” Lessons from the past can inform the present: “Many savants predicted a hundred years ago that the immigrants of their day could never be assimilated, that they would never undertake the civic obligations and adapt to the civic culture of the United States. History has proven them wrong.” [How many ‘immigrants’ learn ‘English’ well enough to speak it fairly well? Go to any large (or even small) city and you will see a section (or sections) of that city that has their signs in Spanish (or Chinese or Russian, etc.). If they were ‘assimilating’ then they would learn the language. Do they ‘have to’ assimilate? Can they choose not to, and to preserve their culture within the American culture setting? Yes they can… but this does not strengthen America… it only strengthens their culture.]

The word for this approach is multiculturalism. One should not assume that this simply refers to a positive recognition of diversity in American culture. It goes far beyond this. It implies the enshrining of the maintaining of cultural distinctions without the pulling together of the various factions for an American commonality. It is in essence, an attempt to prevent Americanization of any form. Barone encapsulates this well:

The main threats to assimilation come not from the immigrants themselves, but from American elites who flinch at the mention of Americanization and who find European-style multiculturalism more appealing. There are the educational elites, who support so-called bilingual education—which in practice is too often neither bilingual nor education—in which children are taught in bad Spanish and kept from mastering the English language, the first rung on the ladder of upward mobility….There are the highly educated moral-relativist elites, who regard our civilization as a virus and hostile immigrants and

multiculturalism as the cure. [It might be that ‘influential ones’(elites) in our country don’t really want the immigrants ‘assimilating’… but would rather have them live in their own communities; they don’t want a bunch of Mexicans living down the street from them.]

[The aliens and strangers of the Bible were expected to obey the Hebrew laws, though they were exempt from some. They were also treated differently than the children of Israel in that they could not own property; they could be bought as slaves and charged interest on loans.

Only if these aliens and strangers were fully converted as Jews – and that included circumcision – could they be landowners, partake of the Passover and be fully integrated into the nation of Israel.

In other words, even though the aliens and strangers of the Bible were not illegal aliens, they were still expected to fully assimilate into the Hebrew religion and culture before they could receive all the blessings and all the responsibility of full citizenship.]

Obey the law?

One of the defining keys for how to deal with illegal immigration from a Bible point of view relates to biblical instruction on obeying the law. Both Jesus and Paul were clear that believers are to obey the government authorities (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-7). [Thus, if it many in our country are here illegally, the law should be followed in regards to their crime … i.e., deporting. But, what do if they have families with young children? Do we keep the kids here and send the parents back? Do we send the whole family back? What happens if only the dad is here illegally? What happens when Central American pregnant women and younger children are dropped off on the American side of the Rio Grand by ‘smugglers’… do we fly them to Guatemala? Do we take care of the poor, the fatherless? Do we enforce the law the same way every time? I see nothing wrong with enforcing the law the same way no matter what the circumstances, and I also see nothing wrong with enforcing the law on a case by case basis… showing mercy in certain situations.]

Closing remarks

If the government ordered me not to share the gospel with illegal immigrants, I would disobey that order.

In light of the Bible‟s insistence of obedience to the government, churches should not hide illegals from the INS. Christian businessmen should not hire illegals to work in their businesses unless the government specifically allows it.

[Be careful who and how many you allow into your great “Christian nation”!

Joshua 23:13 Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

The issue of immigration can eventually destroy our nation from within. We could soon be a nation without identity, without convictions, without purpose. We could easily be swallowed up in globalism and join with the EC in one big ‘happy’ family! America as a Christian superpower could all be gone very soon.]