Musings about the Immigration Debate

I'm on a roll with posting to my blog today. There have been many things on my mind to explain to people to exhort them to a greater love of God, and to comfort them in times of hardship.

I need to say something about the huge immigration debate. I'm going to mix "what would Jesus do" types of citations with some common sense about human nature. I'm just going to make some quick points.

1. Jesus lived in preached in a time where access to and from cities was controlled by gates. During his time it would have been considered the height of folly to do otherwise. Cities had to control their access for safety and security. Countries were still so rural that "everyone knew everyone" so there was safety in the local knowledge of families, extended clans, and visitors. So it is 100% safe to assume that Jesus would endorse a controlled border.

For those who might argue that he would not, let me point out that the future "heavenly Jerusalem" witnessed by St. John in the Book of Revelations (Apocalypse), the city has twelve gates. While the number of gates has symbolism, as St John explains, the fact that they exist, even in heaven, has significance. There are twelve gates with writing "which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel" (Apocalypse 21:12.) Now, this does not mean that only the twelve tribes are in heaven or use that gate, because St John specifies that the "names" are there, but he does not see the people or their usage, except for twelve angels. Further, the wall of the city has twelve foundation stones "and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (14.) So the gates represent a melding of the religious foundations, in the Old Testament Israel, the New Covenant twelve apostles, and the heavenly eternal life, represented by the angels.

The gates represent the old, the new, and the future (remember, St John who is viewing this would have seen his own name on one of those foundation stones as he was still alive, hale and hearty, so he and the apostles represent the really New Covenant.) St John does not see the people yet, but when speaking of the city having no temple, sun, or moon ("for the glory of God lights it up" 23) but he mentions "the nations shall walk by the light thereof; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory and honor into it" 24).

So the glimpse of the heavenly Jerusalem can inform us in this way:
o There are gates to control access
o The gates, wall, and foundation stones recognize the old, new and future
o "Nations" shall walk within
o "kings of the earth shall bring their glory and honor into it."

We can with confidence, then, inform our immigration dilemma with these parallels and at no risk conclude that:

o It is righteous to control access to the USA (as is true for any country.)
o It is righteous to honor both the native population, the current immigrants, and future immigrants. All of them are equal parts in forming the USA.
o Obviously a mix of nationalities have a right to be there.
o However, it is righteous to include only the just. In the bible "kings" and "glory and honor" are terms to represent wise and just rulers and their peoples. It is entirely consistent to limit immigration based on measures of individual honor, such as excluding felons.

2. As far as the structure of the immigration permits, green cards, workforce, and all those details, I'd cite this very important parable by Jesus.

Mathew 20: 1-16
For the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. And having agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And about the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the market place idle; and he said to them, 'Go you also into the vineyard and I will give you whatever is just.' So they went. And again he went out about the sixth, and about the ninth hour, and did as before. But about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing about, and he said to them, 'Why do you stand here all day idle?' They said to him, 'Because no man has hired us.' He said to them, 'Go you also into the vineyard.' But when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, 'Call the laborers, and pay them their wages, beginning from the last even to the first.' Now when they of the eleventh hour came, they received each a denarius. And when the first in their turn came, they thought that they would receive more; but they also received each his denarius. And on receiving it, they began to murmur against the householder, saying 'These last have worked a single hour, and thou hast put them on a level with us, who have borne the burden of the day's heat.' But answering one of them, he said, 'Friend, I do thee no injustice; didst thou not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is thine and go; I choose to give to this last even as to thee. Have I not a right to do what I choose? Or art thou envious because I am generous? Even so the last shall be first, and the first last; for many are called, but few are chosen."

Now remember that Jesus lived in a very agrarian time, where labor was seasonal based on the timing and the levels of the harvest. When people need laborers, they needed them right away, as the work was, to use a modern term, "time critical." This is illustrated by the householder going into the market place a full five times to scoop up available workers, and put them to work, for so abundant was his harvest. He ended up paying each of them for a full day's wage. Now, the points I would make from this parable that are pertinent to and can inform us in the immigration debate are these:

o When laborers are needed they are needed right away, or the business risks ruin.
o The householder knew where to go for workers, and likewise, the laborers knew where to congregate.
o The householder respected the desire of the laborers to work, and put them right to work.
o The laborers wanted to work, and knew the nature of the work.
o All of the laborers were treated with respect and equally (and the money is just an analogy for what I am saying). The parallel I'd make is that the workers in the labor pool were all on equal footing.

We can with confidence, then, conclude that:

o We should create a system that is heavily "work permit" oriented.
o The work permits should be realistic and represent all areas of the country and sectors of laborers, so that wherever the labor pool requires there are resources available on an "in time" basis.
o Work permits should be reasonable and on an equal footing, whether the person is part time or full time, or the nature of the work.
o Priority should be given to those people who have skills for which there is an urgent need, even if those are humble skills. Harvesting, construction, and manufacture are as worthy and pressing as the "prestige" programming jobs and so forth.

3. As far as "amnesty" and fast tracking citizenship, we need to be realistic. I see a distinction between a work permit system orientation, as outlined above, and a citizenship system. I think that a generous and comprehensive work permit system will ease the demand for citizenship and amnesty. Here is a Bible parallel that I put forth for consideration about citizenship, where Jesus cures a woman who is not Jewish.

Matthew 15: 22, 24-28
And behold, a Canaanite woman came out of that territory and cried out to him, saying, "Have pity on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is sorely beset by a devil.... But he answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and worshipped him, saying, "Lord, help me!" He said in answer, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs." But she said, "Yes, Lord; for even the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered and said to her, "O woman, great is thy faith! Let it be done to thee as thou wilt." And her daughter was healed from that moment.

I know that at first read to some Jesus sounded harsh in his reluctance and use of the children and dog parallel. (Incidentally, remember that at that time, just as later in medieval times, dogs ran around the household as food collectors for all that spilled on the floor. So Jesus was in a way saying that taking the bread to give to the dogs was acting prematurely and not taking care of immediate needs.) Jesus felt this way because his ministry was vast, all of Israel and surrounding lands to the Jews, and his time was very short, only a few years. Also he was building on the Jewish faith as the fulfillment of the prophecies and initiation of the New Covenant. Yet he was quickly persuaded and in true admiration of the woman's great humility and faith on behalf of her daughter, and so he performed the miraculous healing.

We can with confidence, then, infer that:

o The needs of the existing constituents must take first priority. So we should not harm current citizen's well being by going too far and too fast with immigration.
o However, the desires of those truly earnest for citizenship should be respected.
o The core family is of great importance and should be respected in the structuring of immigration and amnesty. Notice that the woman is asking on behalf of her daughter, and that Jesus uses an analogy about the primacy of a child's welfare in return.
o And while I don't quote that scripture, immediately upon Jesus' death and resurrection the apostles are authorized to preach to and convert the Gentiles.

So if anyone were to ask me, this is what I would advise, and this is in order of importance and time of implementation:

1. Secure the borders and invest in knowing who is coming and who is going.

2. Create a generous and smart country and industry wide work permit system. Issue those permits to illegals now in the country who qualify and using the secure borders monitoring, manage their coming and going. Remember that many single people are here working, and sending money home to families and that there is a broken family as a result. I think work permits are appropriate, with enforced touch backs to their home country.

3. Evaluate those situations that remain after the work permits are issued and managed to the maximum extent that they will be, and those remaining are the group to consider for legal immigration. Use kindness and focus on the core (parents and children) family, and take into account their sincerity and how earnest they are in their desire for citizenship.

4. Exclude felons from consideration. I'm not being uncharitable here; I believe more must be done to rehabilitate our existing incarcerated and released felons and we risk across the board failure if we allow felon immigration.