Some prominent conservative evangelicals have joined with
liberal groups to resuscitate Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
A June 12 press conference in Washington, D.C. announced an
“Evangelical Immigration Table” backing these principles for
desired U.S. immigration policy:
- Respects the God-given dignity of every person.
- Protects the unity of the immediate family.
- Respects the rule of law.
- Guarantees secure national borders.
- Ensures fairness to taxpayers.
- Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for
those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents.
The first five principles are laudable but likely will be
overshadowed by the final point for legalization of illegal
immigrants. Endorsers include officials from the Southern Baptist
Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), and
Focus on the Family, as well as liberal groups such as Jim Wallis’s
Sojourners and Evangelicals for Social Action, plus Bread for the
World.
“There are many ordinary days in Washington,” declared Wallis,
the Religious Left’s most prominent voice. “I think this is an
extraordinary day.” An official from NAE’s relief arm agreed: “To
rise above the fray, the Left and the Right, the polarization that
simply does not need to be there, and create a better life for
immigrants.” The official “Table” statement lamented “political
stalemate” over immigration and urged a “bipartisan solution.”
Speakers at the press conference cited polls claiming
overwhelming public support for their version of immigration
reform. But they did not explain why proposals for legalization
keep failing in Congress or why some states, like Arizona and
Alabama, have enacted their own controversial laws against illegal
immigration. Some polls in fact show evangelicals are the most
resistant among American demographic groups to proposals for
legalization. Clearly the coalition aims to revive Comprehensive
Immigration Reform as a viable issue by trying to energize
evangelicals, which are a key constituency among Republicans.
“Together we will create a national groundswell for
comprehensive immigration reform,” Wallis promised. But Wallis,
whose public persona tends to dominate whatever coalition he joins,
is unlikely to persuade the more conservative evangelicals who are
the primary target. The Evangelical Immigration Table maybe would
have been shrewder to exclude Wallis and highlight its conservative
supporters.
Undoubtedly the participating conservative evangelicals in the
“Table” are sincere in affirming “fairness to taxpayers” and
“secure national borders.” But Wallis and Ron Sider of Evangelicals
for Social Action are pacifists opposed to all force. In what sense
do they support “secure borders” beyond maybe the moral suasion of
unarmed Christian Peacemaking Teams encamped at the border? As to
protecting taxpayers, the liberal members of the “Table” likely
have a different understanding than the others, having typically
emphasized the right of illegals to government benefits and
services.
The Table was also vague about the desired sequences of events.
Would borders, and presumably visa enforcement, be secured well
before any mass legalization, as the conservative participants
presumably prefer? Or would legalization get priority, as Wallis et
al. almost surely prefer?
There was also some doubt at the press conference as to the
political priority evangelicals should attach to Comprehensive
Immigration Reform versus other issues of concern to evangelicals
and other traditional religionists, such as marriage, abortion, and
religious freedom issues especially relating to the Obamacare
contraceptive/abortifacient mandate. Historic Christian teaching is
pretty unequivocal about marriage and sanctity of life, and since
religious freedom is central to the church’s ability to function,
presumably the answer would be obvious. Neither the Bible nor
Christian tradition offers clear policy guidance about immigration
policies for modern civil states.
In this election year, should evangelicals prioritize or not
marriage, abortion, and religious liberty over a more prudential
issue like immigration law? The Evangelical Immigration Table left
the waters muddied. No doubt Jim Wallis and the Evangelical Left
are pleased, since their exertions have long tried to steer
evangelicals away from traditional social conservatism in favor of
issues like immigration liberalization.
There is also likely the belief among some evangelicals
supporting the “Table” that they are representing and appealing to
the growing number of evangelical Hispanics. And perhaps they are.
But polls don’t show automatic mass support by Hispanic citizens
for legalization. And evangelical Hispanic churches, which are
mostly charismatic and Pentecostal, overwhelmingly are
non-political. Possibly some Anglo evangelicals, influenced by a
few Hispanic activists, are superimposing their own expectations
onto Hispanic evangelicals. Like other Americans, Hispanic voters
this year are most concerned about the economy. And like Anglo
evangelicals, evangelical Hispanics tend to care deeply about
marriage and abortion as public issues to which their faith speaks
directly.
Many fine Christian leaders, including several friends whom I
greatly admire, have endorsed the “Table.” But likely they will be
disappointed by the Table’s ultimate inability to motivate many
traditional evangelicals. Meanwhile, liberal participants, chiefly
Jim Wallis, who represents no church but is mainly a media
presence, will adroitly exploit the “Table” to amplify their own
influence and preferred policies.
