Patriotic Evangelicals and the Rhetoric of the Immigration Debate


Tagged with: aliens • Evangelical • human rights • illegal • immigrant • immigration • immigration policy • Kirt Lewis • Matt Soerens • migrant • patriotism • Politics • undocumented • Washington • World Relief
I agree with Kirt about the need to look at the immigration issue with facts, and make a judgement based on facts. I also am an Evangelical, and I also am a proud American, and a veteran.
I am against comprehensive immigration reform because it will do little more than legitimize the residency of those who are already here without taking care of the issue of border security and issue of people who overstay their visas. If we create a path to citizenship without proving that we have the political will to close off the “leaks” in our immigration system, in 20 years we will again have to figure out what to do with 5 million or 20 million more illegal immigrants.
If past performance is an indicator of future action (and I believe it is), once the path to citizenship is created, there will be no political will to follow through with the border security issues. Secure the borders first, then lets talk about paths to citizenship.
I’m curious, Rod, how you would define securing the border? We’ve increased border security spending dramatically in the past few years, to the point that we’re now spending $7,500 per person that we apprehend, and unlawful entries are at a forty-year low. How much should we spend per apprehension before the border is secure? Because the economy is so bad right now, very few people are trying to enter illegally, and those who are often people who have already been deported, trying to get back to their families. In my mind, that’s the opportunity to fix the entire system–creating an enforceable workplace authorization system, establishing a flexible, market-based visa system (so that when the economy picks up again, there are legal visas available for the workers we need), and requiring those here now to pay a fine and, if they can satisfy certain requirements, be in probationary legal status to earn permanent legal ststus.
I appreciate your thoughts Rod and understand your concern for policies that might encourage future violations of the law. The argument goes that in general if people feel they can “get away” with something now they will be more apt to act the same way in the future (and encourage others to do the same). The problem I have with this is in the characterization of the language itself. (I know you didn’t use this wording so hopefully you don’t feel like I am putting words in your mouth, but I think that’s basically what people who are thinking who support the position you stated above). I don’t think that most people in the country illegally are that delinquent. Most simply want to provide a living and future for their children, NOT to mock the concept of the rule of law. That’s the same motivation that led many to come to the “new world” and America in particular over its history. I think the point Matt is trying to make is that no amount of border security will ever fully stop those who are convinced that a better life for them and their children can be found on the other side of the fence. They WILL find a way. He and I would argue that comprehensive immigration reform would address the root cause.
Matt how would you respond to that concern? How will the reform you outlined above not lead to us experience the same problem we are experiencing now in the future?
To Rod: Border security aside, how do you feel you, as an EVANGELICAL, should respond to those who are ALREADY in the country illegally? Even if your position stays the same, what language would you use in discussing the issue that would reflect a biblical perspective on undocumented residents (particularly believers)?