SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION: WHAT IS THE STATE’S DUTY UNDER GOD?

Abstract

In recent statements, the Episcopal and Methodist bishops conflate the church’s mission, which is to offer salvation and ministry to all in need, with the state’s divinely ordained mandate, which is to protect its population and enforce the law. The institutional church, including evangelicals, should be cautious about promoting legislative proposals as part of a larger agenda of political coalition building. Churches might more charitably and helpfully remind their members of broad principles that should guide our national conversation. These principles should include compassion and forgiveness but also an understanding of the state’s divine obligation to enforce laws and protect its people.

Keywords:

• North America
• Christianity
• Immigration
• Public Opinion
• Security
• Civil Society
• Law
• Politics

Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.

  —I Peter 2:13–16 ¹

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

  —Romans 13:1–5

Christians have long understood that God ordained the state chiefly to uphold order, enforce the law, provide security to its people, ensure the common good, and punish the wicked. ² But in recent immigration policy pronouncements from some church groups, security and law enforcement have been minimized or even derided.

Church Advocacy for Liberalized Immigration Policy

Forms of immigration reform that inadequately address security and the rule of law are advocated by a variety of Christian groups, especially the mainline Protestant churches. The bishops of the Episcopal Church, recently meeting in Arizona, are one prime example. There they questioned whether the civil state has any right to restrict immigration except to exclude the most egregiously criminal. They declared: “We categorically reject efforts to criminalize undocumented migrants and immigrants, and deplore the separation of families and the unnecessary incarceration of undocumented workers. Since, as we are convinced, it is natural to seek gainful employment to sustain oneself and one’s family, we cannot agree that the efforts of undocumented workers to feed and shelter their households through honest labor are criminal.” ³

Later in their letter the Episcopal bishops approvingly cited border enforcement against migrating “drug traffickers,” “terrorists,” and undefined “other criminals.” But implicitly the bishops believe everybody else in the world has an intrinsic right to move to the US, with full access to the social services and civil protections offered to US citizens. The bishops professed that “inhumane policies directed against undocumented persons (raids, separation of families, denial of health services) are intolerable on religious and humanitarian grounds.” Indeed, “our gracious welcome of immigrants, documented or undocumented, is a reflection of God’s grace poured out on us and on all.”

The bishops of my own United Methodist denomination have touted a similar stance. Last year, in a pastoral letter, they insisted that “welcoming the sojourner is so vital to the expression of Christian faith that to engage in this form of hospitality is to participate in our own salvation.” ⁴ Were they suggesting salvation by immigration activism?! It’s a new theological twist that might raise the eyebrows of Methodist founder John Wesley. The bishops insisted, “We experience redemptive liberation through relationships with migrants in our communities.” Apparently national borders do not matter. “The solidarity we share through Christ eliminates the boundaries and barriers which exclude and isolate,” they insisted. “The sojourners we are called to love are our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters; indeed, they are us.”

United Methodism’s bishops further warned: “In addition, the growing militarism along the border with Mexico further aggravates the suffering of immigrants and border communities as it exposes immigrants and communities to greater violence and mistreatment. Because of all of these circumstances immigrants are forced to live in the shadows of society to avoid being exploited, thus living lives of constant fear and insecurity.” The Methodist bishops do not make it clear what they mean by militarism. Does all border security qualify as “militarism”?

The bishops did acknowledge that “all nations have the right to secure their borders,” even while condemning US efforts to enforce its immigration law as “militarization.” They committed themselves to “comprehensive immigration reform (CIR),” including a “pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants,” wider family reunification, more worker visas, more legal rights and collective bargaining for immigrants (including the “undocumented”), and the elimination of private detention centers.

Do the Methodist bishops favor any immigration restrictions or law enforcement? They did not say, but by implication they do not. They do not acknowledge any US national security and law enforcement concerns about unrestricted immigration. Nor do the bishops comment on the spiritual implications of widespread disregard for the law, either for perpetrators or the wider society.

Contrary to the mythology from both Methodist and Episcopal bishops about the “sojourner” of biblical times who supposedly wandered across nations and empires receiving hospitality, all rulers, in Bible times and now, have to enforce some border law. And like the Episcopal bishops, the Methodists conflate the church’s mission, which is to offer salvation and ministry to all in need, with the state’s divinely ordained mandate, which is to protect its population and enforce the law. The state’s primary responsibility is not to offer hospitality to all potential immigrants, or to guarantee all the rights of citizenship to anyone who crosses the border. God ordained rulers chiefly to establish and maintain order. Their vocation, unlike the church’s, is not proclaiming the Gospel or extending God’s grace with material and spiritual aid. In God’s created order, church and state usually complement, and not duplicate, each other’s work among fallen humanity.

Does the civil law matter at all? Christ thought so, when he commanded compliance with Caesar. But the bishops, both Episcopal and Methodist, avoid deep theological reflection, preferring to rhapsodize about sojourners—among whom Jesus was apparently one, since He was an infant refugee in Egypt. Of course, the Holy Family was escaping Herod’s murderous intent, and remained in Egypt temporarily and, presumably, legally.

The obligation of civil magistrates to enforce the law, including immigration law—whether by border security, employment regulation, or visa enforcement—is readily understood by most Christian lay people, if not always church elites. Recently, the chief lobbyist of my United Methodist denomination spoke to my local congregation and was asked about immigration. He described the official denominational stance, as expressed in its Social Principles, which is essentially that there should be no immigration law enforcement. Stunning many in the audience, he was twice asked to clarify. But his description was largely and remarkably accurate. For him, and for many religious voices supportive of liberalized immigration policies, Christian compassion demands virtually open borders and automatic provision of national benefits to all immigrants.

THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT PROMOTING LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS AS PART OF A LARGER AGENDA OF POLITICAL COALITION BUILDING

There is a vague political and theological universalism that animates the advocacy of many mainline elites (who often dismiss any criticism of their agenda as evidence of bigotry). A more traditional Christian understanding of the common good recognizes that universal love is reached, if at all, incrementally through the particular attachments of church, family, friends, community, and nation. Immigration controls are essential to every nation’s cohesion and sovereignty. Every government is divinely commissioned to protect its people, and, in St. Paul’s words, to “execute wrath on him who practices evil.” A government’s obligation to its people is no less binding or exclusive than a husband or wife’s to his or her spouse, than a parent’s to his or her child, or a pastor’s to the flock. Wise and beneficent governments, spouses, parents, and pastors espouse good will and do justice to all people. But their beneficence in no way negates their primary, God‐ordained duty towards their own peculiar charge.

Immigration advocacy from theologically liberal Mainline Protestants can perhaps be distinguished from the recent political witness of some evangelicals, but not entirely. For instance, by and large the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) now advocates the same policy goals on immigration as the Episcopalians and United Methodists have. The NAE’s stance on immigration does specifically affirm law enforcement, in contrast with mainline advocacy. But the ultimate emphasis is, as with the Mainline Protestants, on legalization of current illegal immigrants and increasing the flow of legal immigration. The NAE’s case, as with other evangelicals backing some form of comprehensive immigration reform, might be more persuasive if it more strongly prioritized law enforcement and security over legalization, and if it were less fulsome about the various legislative proposals emanating from Democratic members of Congress. Otherwise, NAE and likeminded groups leave skeptics wondering if the goal is primarily legalizing illegal immigrants and opening the door to greater levels of legal immigration, with rhetoric about border security merely verbiage to politically sugarcoat mass legalization.

Appropriate Bounds for Christian Advocacy

More broadly, the institutional church should be cautious about promoting legislative proposals as part of a larger agenda of political coalition building. A church’s social witness ideally focuses on first principles, rooted in Christian tradition and Scripture, speaking broadly without aligning specifically with partisan purposes. And that social witness should be pragmatically relevant in a fallen but grace‐sustained world. Clergy and church agencies should be humbly reluctant to endorse specific legislation as God’s will. They should acknowledge that Christianity does not necessarily offer infallibly particular guidance on all political issues. They should be ready to defer to the vocation of Christian lay people to apply their faith in the political sphere in ways that may challenge and divide but ultimately serve Providence.

Church leaders should also be clear as to whether they are claiming to speak for or to their flock. Mainline Protestants spent much of the 20^th century claiming to speak politically for their church membership, when actually they were speaking to it, and not very persuasively. This resulted in estrangement and contributed to Mainline Protestantism’s tragic fall from the center of American religious life, negating much of the political and cultural influence these churches once had. Evangelicals now sit at America’s religious center, thanks partly to their distinctiveness from Mainline Protestants, and they can learn from the Mainline’s mistakes.

Moreover, church leaders must not confuse the church’s role with the state’s role. Of course churches welcome all to hear the Gospel and to receive ministries of compassion. But the state’s divinely ordained role is different, more selective, and often more punitive. Christians, if so called, should cooperate with other people of good will in advocating state policies that safeguard human dignity. They should also holistically understand that human dignity, justice, and grace entail the state’s law enforcement and security obligations, on which all civil justice ultimately depends.

Christians can most effectively contribute to constructive debate by neither stigmatizing nor romanticizing immigrants or any people group. Immigrants, like all of us, are sinners, capable of depravity and, by divine grace, tremendous good. Sweeping generalizations about them, even when favorable, ultimately detract from their humanity. With immigration, as with all human affairs, we should always be aware of unintended moral hazards. Humanity’s fallen nature means that even well intentioned offers of pardon and benefits often fuel further wrongdoing that spiritually and materially harms both perpetrators and victims.

Conclusion

Our fallen nature might likewise warn against sweeping, “comprehensive” and especially utopian solutions. Most human and social problems are addressed incrementally, and no human much less political solution ever works completely. Even relatively effective solutions often generate new problems. Here is the human condition until Christ comes again. Effectively addressing the large number of illegal immigrants currently in the US likely will involve neither mass legalization, which critics call amnesty, nor mass deportation.

Even in a good economy, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants voluntarily return to their native land annually. A poor economy, and enhanced law enforcement, increase that natural attrition. Some national consensus for incremental legalization may develop if and when borders are secured, employers uphold the law, visa deadlines are enforced, and the population of illegal immigrants has gradually diminished. Such a national consensus is probably postponed by adamant insistence on comprehensive immigration reform, with its strong emphasis on legalization.

Churches, rather than strongly aligning with one side of the debate, might more charitably and helpfully remind their members of broad principles that should guide our national conversation. Those Christian principles should absolutely include compassion and forgiveness. But they realistically, and faithfully, must include Christianity’s understanding of the state’s divine obligation to enforce laws and protect its people, as articulated especially by the Apostles Peter and Paul.

Notes

1. Scripture citations herein are from the New King James Version.

2. This essay served as the basis of a presentation I made on the panel, “Immigration and US Security,” November 3, 2010, Washington, DC. The panel was the third in a 3‐panel series on “Immigration Reform: Advancing Human Dignity & Responsibility.” The series was hosted by Nyack College DC Campus, and was sponsored by the Institute for Public Service and Policy Development, the Institute for Global Engagement, the Center for Public Justice, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

3. The quotations in this paragraph and the following paragraph are from Episcopal Church House of Bishops, “A Pastoral Letter from the House of Bishops.”

4. The quotations in this paragraph and the following two paragraphs are from United Methodist Church Council of Bishops, “Statement on the U.S. Immigration Situation.”