Principles Affirmed in Immigration

Upon death, I expect to confront, in some fashion, my countless errors of thought and of faith and to regret the actions to which they led me. On some issue, perhaps a habit, many of us will find it difficult to resist the urge to defend long-held beliefs even in the face of divine correction.
If it turns out, for example, that annual amnesties of illegal immigrants are a morally necessary practice, the task would be not to defend opposing beliefs — arguing that we better understood fairness in life than God — and to desire truly to understand why the option that seemed so wrong to us was, in fact, fair. I tremble to say it, but I’m wary of Bishop Tobin’s confidence that our individual final judgment will hinge on our correctly identifying “the right side of the issue” of illegal immigration, and his implicit argument that “comprehensive immigration reform” is that side.
Granted, the bishop has strong scriptural support in Jesus’ remonstration to welcome strangers as if they are He, and an Old Testament passage is a theologically weaker card to play, but I’ve been reading through Ezekiel, lately, and have been struck by God’s tone when repeatedly instructing the prophet to warn the Israelites of their sins, here, for one example:

… anyone hearing but not heeding the warning of the trumpet and therefore slain by the sword that comes against him, shall be responsible for his own death. …
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and fails to blow the warning trumpet, so that the sword comes and takes anyone, I will hold the watchman responsible for that person’s death, even though that person is taken because of his own sin.

The amnesty, or “path of legalization,” that Bishop Tobin urges seems not only to be welcoming strangers, but also to be confirming them in their implicit beliefs about boundaries and rules. Attempting to steal one’s way into Heaven, while not inevitably punishable by eternal damnation, seems likely to be a more painful path to salvation, ultimately, than taking the steps as laid out.
This is not to say that we should consider admission to the United States to be comparable to admission into Heaven, but that the mindsets by which we live as individuals should mirror our spiritual mindsets. And in this, the position that the entire conference of bishops takes, in America, strikes me as having the same essential problem as the grammatical phrase, “comprehensive immigration reform.” The first word of that phrase, when not applied purely for its beguiling sparkle, typically means “addressing multiple facets of the problem,” but it seems ever to fall short of allocating responsibility to all who have erred. As I’ve argued before, a comprehensive spiritual policy on illegal immigration must also correct the immigrants in their errors of thought.
I’d look to my religious leaders to convince me that the appropriate reaction to circumstances should not include an instruction to illegal immigrants to be happy in their penance of returning to their countries and taking a legal approach. Bishop Tobin acknowledges that it is wrong to ignore “the law in coming to our nation,” but he immediately nullifies that law as superseded by the “law of love.” How could such a higher law fail to hold them accountable, as sentient human beings capable of understanding consequences?
Illegal immigration is surely not the greatest of sins, and there are myriad mitigating factors, but the one-way nature advocacy on behalf of such immigrants is hardly comprehensive. They are requesting special dispensations, and I have yet to see their advocates admonish them that it is critically important that that they prove themselves, from the beginning, to be desirous of earning full citizenship (by, for one thing, learning the language of the country) and acknowledge fully and humbly that they have trespassed.
Instead, we are told to affirm the apparent lesson of the last amnesty, a couple of decades ago: that rules don’t really mean anything for the brash, and a society’s inclination to love and care for others will inevitably lead them to adjust the rules in your favor. For every essay urging fellow Americans toward leniency, shouldn’t there be one addressing the responsibilities and moral mindsets of those who would be its beneficiaries? After all, as attractive as it may be for them to become legal residents of the United States, it is of infinitely greater importance that they become members of the community of Heaven.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
leprechaun
leprechaun
11 years ago

Right on Justin!! I think most people who attempt to practice their Religion faithfully think the same way. Torn and conflicted. I suggest another passage to our religious leaders. It’s from John 10-1 ” Jesus said that He who enters the Sheepfold over the fence rather than coming through the gate is a Thief and a Robber “. The solution to our Illegal Immigration problem is not to coverup for and hide Illegal Aliens behind the doors of our Religious organizations. We already have an abundance of groups advocating for and trying to conceal these lawbreakers at the expense of the “entire Sheepfold”. The solution is very simple. ENFORCE THE LAWS OF OUR LAND!!!!!

steadman
steadman
11 years ago

You don’t ignore the problem, and you shouldn’t make excuses why. Illegal means illegal for a reason. In a small state such as ours, it should be a no brainer regardless of political views. Find, capture, send home. Its not a human rights issue, its a common sense issue. Rhode Island is going to end up like Mexico if we dont stop it now, its already close enough as is. Sick of Dems and the religious using immigrant populations to stir the pot on this topic. They arent legal immigrants, or citizens, thus kick them the hell out.

Tabetha
Tabetha
11 years ago

I think that the biggest hole in any faith-based argument for or against amnesty is that public policy should not be predicated on religious principles in the first place. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state. I do think that we need a solution that both addresses concerns of national security and upholds basic human rights, but I really don’t think it is appropriate to try to base these decisions on scripture. Religion is an inherently personal and individual matter. We should not be creating laws based on some people’s religious beliefs, period. You can advocate for basic human rights without involving religion.

Justin Katz
11 years ago

Tabetha,
I disagree. Laws and public policies should be predicated on the beliefs and principles of the people whom the government represents, and very often, those principles are explicitly founded in religious faith. (And the rest of the time, they are implicitly so.)
It is entirely appropriate for voters to choose their own criteria, and whether the law will result in the eternal damnation of countless people is a pretty major consideration.

Tabetha
Tabetha
11 years ago

You should vote your conscience, yes. But do you advocate the establishment of public policies based on specific religious principles? And if so, whose?
We don’t all believe the same thing. I find that creating policy based on a particular religion would infringe upon the rights of citizens to practice religious freedom.

OldTimeLefty
11 years ago

Hey Justin,
Why don’t you go right to a theocracy here in these United States. We can start our own jihad, er crusade, against those heretical theocracies that we don’t like.
OldTimeLefty

Not For Nothing
11 years ago

Mixed messages from Camp Carcieri

Governor Carcieri might have precluded the stormy reaction to his executive order on immigration if he

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.