A JUST, FAIR, AND COMPASSIONATE IMMIGRATION POLICY

Abstract

Since passing a resolution in 2006, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has repeatedly called for comprehensive immigration reform. The parameters of the plan to address the immigration problem rest on three broad pillars. One of these pillars would directly enhance the conditions and prosperity of the American workforce—namely, a program with multiple paths to legal status, including an expanded guest‐worker program. However, the two other pillars—a secure border, and enforcement of internal immigration laws—must be in place first, otherwise initiatives like an expanded guest worker program will not be bureaucratically or politically feasible.

Keywords:

• North America
• Christianity
• Immigration
• Law
• Security
• Politics

It is well past time for our nation to come together and resolve its immigration crisis. ¹ With an estimated 11–12 million men, women, and children living and working illegally in the United States, it has become a festering moral, social, and political crisis that is rending the social fabric of the nation in ways that are easier to rend than they are to mend. Despite the impasse in previous Congresses on immigration reform, this crisis is not insurmountable. Congress can and must devise a plan to bring these people out of the shadows. The more protracted the delay in action, the more severe the problem will become.

Like some other religious bodies, the Southern Baptist Convention has been vocal on the issue of immigration reform. In June 2006, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution that called for enforcement of immigration laws balanced with compassion for those here illegally. ²

Fundamentally, Southern Baptists and other Evangelicals view immigration through the lens of their faith. As citizens of the United States, we have an obligation to support the government and the government’s laws for conscience’s sake (Romans 13:7). We also have a right to expect the government to fulfill its divinely ordained mandate to punish those who break the laws and reward those who do not (Romans 13:1–7). We also recognize, however, a biblical mandate to care for “the least of these among us” (Matthew 25:34–40), to care for the “strangers” who reside in our land (Leviticus 19:34; Hebrews 13:2), and to act justly and mercifully (Micah 6:8). With these scriptural mandates in mind, Southern Baptists pledged in the 2006 resolution to, among other things, “act redemptively and reach out to meet the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of all immigrants, to start English classes on a massive scale, and to encourage them toward a path of legal status and/or citizenship.” ³

Acts of mercy have been and remain insufficient by themselves to repair our broken immigration system. Nor is the church’s responsibility equivalent to the government’s. While Evangelicals must do their part individually and collectively as churches to reach out to those here illegally, only a proper government response can resolve our immigration crisis.

Pillars of Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Over the last four years, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has repeatedly called for comprehensive immigration reform. In April 2006, I laid out the parameters of a plan to address the immigration problem in a comprehensive manner. This holistic approach rests on three broad pillars that expand upon the foundation of the Convention’s resolution. One of these pillars would directly enhance the conditions and prosperity of the American workforce—namely, a program with multiple paths to legal status, including an expanded guest‐worker program. However, the two other pillars—a secure border, and enforcement of internal immigration laws—must be in place first, otherwise initiatives like an expanded guest worker program will not be politically viable or bureaucratically feasible.

Border Security

Border security is a non‐negotiable component of any successful immigration reform plan. Americans have a right to expect the federal government to enforce the laws regarding those who cross our borders. Border security is a question of national sovereignty, national security, and the government fulfilling its divinely mandated responsibility to enforce the law. Any successful political consensus on how to address the immigration crisis must be built on the foundation of the federal government convincing the American people that it has committed the necessary resources to secure our borders.

This does not mean closing our borders or installing continuous fences, but borders must be controlled. We need to know who comes in, who goes out, and who they are. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the federal government has failed to fulfill its responsibility in this area, thereby fueling severe consternation among a sizable constituency of Americans and fostering the immigration crisis we face today.

An unsecured border also poses a direct threat to our national security. The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on US soil serve as a chilling reminder of our broken immigration system. We now know that the 19 al Qaeda terrorists who carried out the attacks evaded immigration laws and had been living in the United States for months. As a result, nearly 3000 innocent American lives were ruthlessly ended. Porous borders give terrorists and deported illegal immigrants who wish us harm relative ease of entry and reentry into the United States. In a post‐9/11 world, a failure to control our borders only makes our nation more vulnerable to future attacks.

Enforcement of Internal Immigration Laws

The second pillar of comprehensive immigration reform is a commitment by the federal government to enforce the laws within the country, which includes cracking down on businesses that employ workers illegally. Here, too, the federal government has failed. Americans know the government is quite capable of enforcing laws that it truly wishes to enforce—the Internal Revenue Service comes to mind. The federal government is clearly culpable for not having the will to dedicate sufficient resources to enforce the laws at our borders and within the 50 states. That must change.

One useful means of cracking down on illegal workers has been the use of an electronic verification system. The E‐Verify background check program, run by the Department of Homeland Security in conjunction with the Social Security Administration, enables employers to determine the eligibility of newly hired workers by entering their tax information into a free web‐based database. This program, currently voluntary for most employers, should be reauthorized and made a mandatory part of the hiring process. Employers found to have hired those illegally living in the US should face stiff fines and penalties.

Moreover, lessons from previous congressional debates on immigration reform should not be forgotten. The American people want a far more tangible and demonstrated commitment from the government that it is taking border security and enforcement more seriously first. Only then would they give their support to any plan to resolve the issues surrounding the millions of immigrants who are already here in an undocumented status.

Path to Legal Status/Expanded Guest‐Worker Program

The third and final pillar of comprehensive immigration reform is a program with multiple paths to legal status for illegal immigrants, including citizenship, a temporary worker program, and a permanent or temporary legal residency program.

Some have asked, “Why not just insist that all of the 11–12 million illegal immigrants go home?” The simple answer is that there is neither the political nor economic will in the US population for forcibly rounding up millions of people—many of whom have children who are US citizens—and shipping them back to their country of origin. Politics and public policy are “the art of the possible.”

Second, it would not be fair or right. We have sent at best a mixed message to undocumented workers for more than two decades. At the border, we have had two signs posted: “No Trespassing” and “Help Wanted.” Further, it is manifestly unfair to not enforce a law for more than two decades and then all of a sudden announce that we are going to retroactively enforce laws that have been dormant in terms of enforcement.

AT THE BORDER, WE HAVE HAD TWO SIGNS POSTED: “NO TRESPASSING” AND “HELP WANTED”

The analogy that I’ve used is that it would be like the US government sending me a letter saying, “We’ve been monitoring your speeding habits on the interstates for several years. We haven’t given you any tickets, but we have been taking note via satellite surveillance of each time that you have broken the law, and now we’re going to send you a ticket for every time you broke the law and charge you for each occurrence retroactively, and oh, by the way, we’re also going to confiscate your car.” I wouldn’t think that would be very fair. I don’t think most of my fellow Americas would feel it was very fair either. If they gave me a speeding ticket the first or second time that I exceeded the speed limit, I probably would have stopped, but they didn’t. Just so, it is not right or fair to ignore a law for two decades and then retroactively enforce it.

On the other hand, a path to legalization must not involve any type of “amnesty” that would just forgive illegal entry, and it must require that those who are in the US illegally be placed behind those who have been, and are trying, to come here legally. This program would recognize that these undocumented immigrants did break the law. However, most of them have been hard‐working, law‐abiding residents since their arrival. Therefore, the program would, in effect, say to those who are here illegally: You have a one‐time opportunity to come forward and apply for legal status. If such undocumented workers and would‐be immigrants could demonstrate that they have been employed, and have not broken the law before or since their illegal entry, they could apply for legal status to remain in the country.

Some critics suggest that “comprehensive reform” is code for amnesty, but such a proposed program is not amnesty because it does not merely pardon an offender. Those who are in the US illegally would have to acknowledge they have broken the law and they would be punished. My proposal requires lawbreakers to pay a fine, learn to read, write, and speak English (and be certified to have done so by standardized testing), and follow a rigorous process for legal status. Penalties, probation, and requirements do not equal “amnesty.” Going to the back of the line behind those who have, and are trying, to come here legally is not amnesty. These are principles of justice and fairness that respect the rule of law and treat all parties involved (US citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants) with dignity.

Such a proposed program would also give employers a time‐defined window to come forward, pay a fine, and come clean for past offenses. If employers and illegal immigrants don’t take advantage of such offers, the government will be free to deport workers and to fine or possibly prosecute businesses.

Also, the government should establish an expanded guest‐worker program for people who would like to come to the US to work. The government could allow a certain number of guest workers each year to come and fill jobs that employers have not been able to fill after being advertised for a period of time in the US. These new guest workers would also have to agree to a background check and to learn English.

Coming forward and earning recognized legal status would have several advantages both for immigrants and for the nation. First, it would give the immigrants protection against exploitation by employers and by others in society who prey on them as vulnerable and legally defenseless.

Second, it would allow immigrants to go home periodically and visit their families in their country of origin and then return to the US. In fact, a significant minority (about 30 percent) of undocumented workers do not wish to remain in the US permanently or bring their families here. ⁴ These individuals would welcome the opportunity to be guest workers and be able to send money home to and visit their families in their home countries without fear of not being able to get back into the US.

Third, greatly expanding the program for new guest workers would make the job of border enforcement easier. If immigrants have a meaningful, legal pathway to cross the border, there will be less temptation to enter illegally and less opportunity to remain here illegally, and the number of people attempting illegal entry would drop. This is especially true when this legal pattern is coupled with much stricter enforcement of an enhanced E‐Verification system and much stiffer penalties for unscrupulous employers who continue to hire undocumented workers.

I believe a majority of Americans would support such a comprehensive program that would constitute real border security, the enforcement of existing laws within our borders, and a fair and compassionate way to address the crisis of the 11–12 million illegal immigrants already here.

In addition, any immigration reform plan must be sensitive to the calling and obligation faith communities feel to engage in human needs ministry. Christians have a divine mandate to care for those in need and to give a cup of cold water in Jesus’ name (Matthew 10:42). The story of the Good Samaritan also informs our spiritual obligation to reach out to those in need of assistance (Luke 10:30–37). Our government should not criminalize private citizens who give a cup of cold water, a hot meal, a warm bed, or medical assistance to those who are in our country illegally. The legislation proposed in a previous Congress, for example, included no such exemption for charitable activity toward all people, regardless of their residency status. I do not, nor do most Evangelicals, support the practice of providing sanctuary to those who are here illegally, but most Evangelicals do support the practice of meeting the basic human needs of people who are here, regardless of their immigration status.

Conclusion

Part of the United States’ greatness is rooted in its history of immigration. Most Americans are able to claim US citizenship as a result of their ancestors’ immigration. Over the last four centuries, people have left their homelands with sights set on the United States for several reasons—some in pursuit of economic fortune, while others, like my Baptist forefathers, for religious freedom. Yet their dreams share a common theme: Hope for a better life than offered in their native land.

Today’s tough economic climate should not obscure the underlying reality: Comprehensive immigration reform is morally sound and in the long‐term best interest of the US economy, workforce, and national security. ⁵ The architectural blueprint and the building materials for a successful consensus on comprehensive immigration reform are present in American society today. What is needed to bring that potential to fruition? Statesmanship. It has been said that politicians think about the next election, while statesmen focus on the next generation. We need statesmen who will put aside short‐term perceived partisan advantage and bring the consensus to fruition.

Notes

1. This essay served as the basis of a presentation I made on the panel, “Immigration and the Workforce,” October 13, 2010, Washington, DC. The panel was the second 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.

2. Southern Baptist Convention, “On the Crisis of Illegal Immigration.”

3. Ibid.

4. See Waldinger, Between Here and There.

5. See Council on Foreign Relations, “Independent Task Force Report No. 63 on U.S. Immigration Policy.” I had the privilege of serving on this task force co‐chaired by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and President Bill Clinton’s former chief‐of‐staff Thomas F. McLarty III. This task force report is a “must read” for anyone who seeks to deal seriously with the immigration issue.