Is God for Illegal Immigration?

[Woodmonkey]

Is God for Illegal Immigration?

Yesterday, May Day, we witnessed some of the largest demonstrations of immigrants on American soil. The masses of mostly brown skinned activists and their followers were protesting what they consider unjust immigration policy and practice in the United States of America. Strewn conspicuously throughout the congregants, one couldn't help but notice church banners, crosses and other religious symbols. It would seem we are witnessing faith-based immigration reform activism. Does this mean God is on the side of the protesters?

Seeing these demonstrations on television, my thoughts darted back and forth between the immigration arguments of social conservatives, with their focus on the respect for law and national security (both of which are good objectives), and their liberal counterparts, with their focus on the protection of human rights (also a very good thing).

I believe the immigration reform logjam we now encounter is due in great part to the false premise that the good immigration objectives of the conservative movement are incompatible with the good objective, in this case, of liberal activists. When religious leaders or institutions give priority to the defense of human rights (as they should), this false premise becomes even more compelling. After all, have you ever seen a priest or a pastor protesting illegal border crossing? There is a reason for this, but it's not what most would think.

No, God is not in favor of illegal behavior and dangerous borders. But given a church's spiritual and humanitarian role, it is right and understandable that it speaks out with special force against the miserable conditions of the immigrants whom companies and governments are utilizing for economic gain. This moral voice, however, mustn't be one-sided. Just as every immigrant has a right to be treated with dignity, every government has the right and obligation to regulate immigration to sustainable levels, for the good of its own citizens and its immigrants. Religious leaders should be saying this too, don't you think? Why aren't they? Some are.

This one-sidedness is particularly evident in partisan politics. Democrats have done a better job making themselves into the good guys in public opinion by rightly criticizing the administration for a hypocritical system of random and sporadic crackdowns on illegal workers. But Republicans rightly complain that, in fact, the Democrats aren't really the moral puritans they profess to be because they refuse to control the borders and penalize employers.

The truth of the matter, one that both parties should be able to agree upon in principle, is that the dark side of immigration activism is the pursuit of some good objectives to the exclusion or vilification of others. Wouldn't it be nice to hear a Democratic pundit (or priest or pastor) on cable television or talk radio speak about the importance of the respect for law, not as a concession to the opponent, but rather as a conviction of their own? And wouldn't it be refreshing to hear from a Republican pundit that no love for law or security is ever a valid excuse for treating people like animals, or slaves?

Republican and Democratic administrations and legislative majorities have been guilty of hypocrisy and complacency. Our politicians on both sides of the aisle have feigned interest in rectifying our present immigration crisis, while cuddling up to the beneficiaries of cheap labor made possible by porous borders and paralyzed structures.

Social conservatives and liberals alike would be wise to re-examine their approach to our present crisis of illegal immigration. God is on the side of human rights and also on the side of legality and security. It is our problem if we choose one over the other and pretend that we are righteous.

The Source

[leobold1]

"Protection of human rights?"

I'm tired of hearing about the rights of people who not only break, but flout the laws of the nation they reside in.

What about the rights of the people who's identity has been stolen, many of whom have their credit ruined or jobs lost because they can't prove that they really are who they say they are?

What about the victims of crimes who only did what they were supposed to, only to find out the police have already let them get out of jail because they didn't call the INS before it?

What about those killed, either by people driving without a license because they can't pass the test thanks to a lack of proper identification; or is the member of a gang?

What about the jobs lost because they are willing to work for less than minimum wage, because what company is going to pay someone $6.00 per hour when they can get twice the work for $3.00 per hour?

What about the rights of the people who DO follow the laws, and get shafted thanks to a group of people who are concerned with "human rights"?

[Snowden]

The cost of living has interfered, and illegal is just that - "illegal." We still have immigration that is good to and for people, but we have requirements that are imposed from necessity, not for any intention of denying people the opportunity of living and working here.

If people are illegal, they deserve one of two things. Deportation or jail. Governments are responsible for the people who are citizens, not for just anybody who wanders in and demands charity. That's what it is; charity. That's the thing that comes from churches and places that are put together by people, Christian or not, who simply want to help anybody in need.

Come in legally; we stand ready to help those who do. The illegals deserve nothing. That's hard, but it has to be that way.

[Angelus]

In previous decades when emplyment was high in the US, a blind eye was turned by the Government and by many US citizens, away from illegal immigration, because these illegal immigrants done the menial, hard labour tasks that many US citizens didn't want, thus keeping the unit costs of many retail items, including argriculture, gardening, road swepping, etc. Us employers got cheap labour, with no union rules, and costs were competitive.

Post 9/11 and the terrorist threat, and the weakened US economy, there is a cry for the immigration wall to go up. I am not excusing illegal immigration, I feel we in the UK need this. The whole world wants to come to a small island, and we cannot accommodate all of them, therefore there does need to be legal migration.

However, the US accepted and created the opportunity over many decades, when it suited them, now, Mexicans and others still believe they can settle in the Land of the free, as many of the countrymen did in those previous decades.

If the US wish to prevent this illegal immigration, it would seem to me that they should try to make Mexico, and other nearby countries a better place to live, by increasing trade with them, enable them to get jobs in their own country.

I still believe there would be a muted objection by some parts of the US economy if it were stopped, cheap labours, gardeners/pool people, etc.

An objective comment from across the pond.

[leobold1]

I fully agree with your post, except for this:

The US has done much to create jobs in Mexico, and not always in ways that are making Americans happy. Ford, Chevy, Dodge, and GM all have auto plants in Mexico, because...

Its cheaper in labor costs to have many parts built there. That makes for cheaper cars, and more competition with the Japanese and European car makers.

Outsourcing to Mexico is growing every year, and the car makers are only one of many in the manufacturing industry that are doing this. Americans aren't happy about it because its American jobs that are getting hit by it.

Aside from that, there are many who have turned a blind eye since all this began. In 1986 we had an Amnesty under President Reagan, and we were told that it would end the debate and get rid of the illegals for once and for all. We may have a few thousand, but that would be it.

15 years later we realized we were in trouble again after burying our heads in the sand.