Overshadowed by the Obamacare vote, tens of thousands marched on
the National Mall on Sunday March 21 for “Comprehensive
Immigration Reform (CIR),” including numerous religious groups.
Called the “March for America,” sponsors included immigrants
groups and labor unions, as well as ACORN, CodePink, National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force, the National Council of Churches, and the
National Association of Evangelicals.
Essentially the marchers want a rehash of the failed 2007
legislation creating a pathway to citizenship for illegal
immigrants, which critics call “amnesty,” as well as increased
visa quotas, a guest worker program, and enhanced family
reunification. New York Senator Chuck Schumer is pushing a Senate
version, while Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois is pushing the
U.S. House version.
Oldline Protestant liberals naturally were prominent in the
march, and the United Methodist Building on Capitol Hill served
as a staging area for demonstrators. “We saw the integrity of law
enforced, but the integrity of individuals and persons
forgotten,” exclaimed Phoenix-area United Methodist Bishop
Minerva Carcano at a pre-march religious rally. (You can read my
assistant Connor Ewing’s article here.)
She was bewailing a 2008 Iowa immigration raid. Officials of her
denomination oppose any substantive enforcement of current
immigration law and resist the imposition of new law. Carcano
denounced “that despicable wall” along America’s border with
Mexico that has “brought a shadow upon this country as dark as
night.”
Does national sovereignty serve any providential role for
the Religious Left? Apparently not. Bishop Carcano seems to
oppose any kind of border protections. “As people of faith, we
knew it was coming because the God we serve won’t let walls of
oppression and separation stand,” she enthused about a
bureaucratic slow-down in completing the long-discussed southern
border fence. “The sea had refused to let those pillars stand,”
Carcano rejoiced over the destruction of a coastal border fence
by waves. “If the waters of the sea could do that to the pillars,
what could we Christians do if we let the waters of our
baptism…topple the pillars of injustice?”
Apparently the Lord wants anyone to be able to walk across
the U.S. border unimpeded. Carcano insisted that CIR’s critics
are opposing “the reign of God.” It’s not clear if the Religious
Left believes the Almighty opposes national boundaries for any
nation, or just for the United States. Either way, many of these
religious activists assert that Christian compassion requires
that all of U.S. citizenship’s benefits should automatically be
available to everyone of the world’s over 6 billion people. It is
a sweeping claim.
Joining the Religious Left at least as of last year is the
once solidly conservative National Association of Evangelicals
(NAE), which has endorsed CIR and the “March for America.” Some
NAE voices are weary from combat over abortion and same-sex
marriage and see CIR, like the NAE’s environmental activism, as
supposedly less culturally confrontational. The NAE’s pro-CIR
resolution, approved last year, recalls how the “Bible
contains many accounts of God’s people who were forced to
migrate.” And it insists that God’s people must show a “generous
spirit” towards the ostensibly displaced. (Read my colleague Alan
Wisdom’s analysis of the NAE stance here.)
Regarding law enforcement and national security, the NAE
resolution was somewhat dismissive of any “simplistic defense of
‘the rule of law,’” and only grudgingly admitted “God has
established the nations (Deut. 32:8, Acts 17:26), and their laws
should be respected.” At least the NAE grants more than the old
Religious Left, which snarls at the mere mention of border
fences. With similar brevity, the NAE acknowledged that some
“communities now struggle with significant stress on
infrastructures in education, health care, social services, and
the legal system” because of immigration.
But the NAE breezily conflated legal immigrants with
illegals, and failed to distinguish between economic migrants and
refugees, even victims of religious persecution, whose plight
presumably would merit NAE’s special attention. The NAE also
complained that current quota systems preclude enough visas for
current labor needs, without explaining how this is true during a
recession, or how greater immigration would affect current
legally resident immigrants, not to mention others on the bottom
of the economic ladder.
The NAE does not directly challenge national sovereignty or
law enforcement as the old Religious Left does. But it does
mostly repeat the Religious Left’s mistake of confusing the
state’s responsibilities with the church’s. The former
providentially upholds the law, defends its people, and punishes
malefactors. The latter offers ministry and grace to all persons.
These two callings are not at odds. But the religious activists
marching last Sunday, whether evangelical or oldline liberals,
largely assume that governments must endlessly offer mercy and
benefits to all comers without regard to behavior. Traditional
Christian teachings would recognize such an approach as anarchic
and lacking moral perspective, breeding injustice for all
parties.
A recent commentary from an NAE official could just as
easily have come from the National Council of Churches,
romanticizing the “sojourner,” and insisting that
“those who welcome strangers are said to be
entertaining angels.” Religious immigration activists commonly
identify biblical heroes as struggling immigrants, by implication
supposedly having violated the immigration laws of ancient Israel
or Egypt. “We see the hand of God in the movement of peoples
throughout history,” this NAE official proclaimed.
No doubt. But is God opposed to any lawful restrictions on
immigration? Has God provided clear legislative guidance on the
best immigration laws for the modern United States? Does
Christian compassion compel disregard of or resistance to current
immigration law? Few of the religious immigration marchers on
Sunday seem to have answered these questions very
seriously.
