At its September board meeting, the National Council of Churches
approved a resolution essentially supporting virtually open borders
for the U.S, ascribing support for border control to “fear” and
racism.
“We acknowledge the ease with which we as human beings are prone
to fear people who we consider ‘other,’ yet our faith challenges us
to overcome such natural fear of those who are not like us,” the
NCC intoned. It recalled America’s struggle to overcome “racial,
ethnic, gender and religious discrimination.” And it expressed
distress that America may currently succumb to “fear, xenophobia,
and racist impulses directed against new immigrants.”
The high-minded, largely Mainline Protestant WASP’s who run the
NCC no doubt were pleased with themselves for having spoken so
bravely. But after 40 years of continuous decline in both church
membership and intellectual seriousness, the NCC has mostly lost
its ability to construct a thoughtful social witness for its over
30 member denominations. Maybe there are intelligent and Christian
reasons for the United States automatically to offer all the
benefits of citizenship to anyone in the world who can cross the
border. But labeling critics of such a revolutionary plan as bigots
hardly qualifies as persuasive.
A MORE EXPLICIT allegation of racism aimed at opponents of open
borders came from an official of the United Methodist lobby office
on Capitol Hill last month. “As we approach the 2008 election, I
expect anti-immigrant voices will grow louder trying to demonize
undocumented aliens as scapegoats for all that ails the United
States,” decried Bill Mefford, Director of Civil and Human Rights
for the United Methodist Board of Church and Society. “Demonization
of another ethnic group is not a new form of bigotry, of course.
The voices that rant and rave about undocumented aliens sound
remarkably similar to those that ranted and raved against
desegregation during the civil rights period.”
Evidently lacking more compelling arguments, Mefford likened
quotes from Klansmen and segregationists of past decades to
ostensibly similar sentiments from today’s critics of open borders.
“Both groups seek social control by demonizing another race through
incendiary rhetoric,” he observed, professing that “blatant
bigotry” is “rooted firmly in North America,” rearing its “ugly
head with little provocation, much like a weed in a garden unless
you remove its root.” By exposing them, Mefford hopes to “silence
these voices of bigotry.”
Mefford quoted segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace in
denouncing the “forced integration of individuals,” and likened him
to Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, who remarked about
immigration control: “We have to remember that this is a clash of
civilizations. No, this is a clash for civilization.” More
sinisterly, a 1960s era Klansman is quoted as promoting the “strict
preservation of the races, and the control of the social structure
in the hands of the Christian, Anglo-Saxon, white men, the only
race on earth that can build and maintain just and stable
governments.” The Klan blurb is likened to Fox host Bill O’Reilly
saying that open borders advocates “hate America, and they hate it
because it’s run primarily by white, Christian men,” with O’Reilly
alleging racism both on the “anti-Latino front, and you have racism
on the anti-Christian, white male front.”
A 1960s era White Citizens Council honcho is quoted as boasting
that he is the “product of my heredity and education and the
society in which I was raised. And I have a vested interest in that
society, and I along with a million other white Mississippians will
do everything in our power to protect that vested interest.” And he
is likened to Colorado Congressman Douglas Bruce saying, “I don’t
think we need 5,000 more illiterate peasants in Colorado,” when
arguing against temporary visas for immigrant workers.
MEFFORD LACED HIS comparative quotations with Scriptures that
declare God’s universal love for all people. The NCC likened
immigrants to biblical “sojourners” and “pilgrims.” Enshrouding all
immigrants with mystical reverence is a nice touch for the
politicized NCC, which does not often emphasize the transcendent.
In fact, immigrants are mostly just regular people, not sanctified
saints, and they primarily are seeking to improve their economic
status, with which all humans can sympathize. For Christians, there
are really no definitive Scriptures that directly outline the
proper border policies for nation states.
Unlike Mefford, the NCC at least tersely acknowledged: “We
recognize that government may have legitimate, morally justifiable
reasons for denying immigration to certain persons.” Perhaps
Mefford would liken the NCC to Bull Connor for this brief
assertion. In its seven page resolution, the NCC did not elaborate
as to what immigration restrictions might be morally acceptable.
Instead, it preferred to slam skeptics of open borders as
“anti-immigrants” and xenophobes, animated by “prejudice” that
poses an “existential threat” to the nation.
Morally serious church prelates would avoid such snide
generalizations about motivations. Instead, they would deploy the
tools of Christian tradition to weigh the potential benefits of
mass immigration with the obligations of nation states to safeguard
their borders for the protection of all. Neither the NCC nor the
United Methodist lobby office seem interested in that kind of
reasoned argument.
Mark Tooley directs the United Methodist committee at
the Institute on
Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C.
