Lux Lucet

Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Among the more frustrating aspects of the immigration debate is that, at least as far as immigration and related issues are discussed in the mainstream press, it is not a debate at all.

In general, reporting on immigration issues takes the form of a lecture, in which proponents of keeping and/or expanding the current immigration/refugee/aslyee/migration system are posited as the defenders of all that is just, right and holy, heroically fighting against nativist, racist, xenophobic bigots who complain that current immigration laws do not serve the interests of the American people.

This sort of reporting often has a Kantian undertone to it, by which I mean that in many cases immigration to the US is explicitly or implicitly presented as, on the one hand, a right to which is due to the entire non-American population of the world, and, on the other hand, a duty owed by American people to them. The notion that US immigration policy should serve the interests of the American people – a point that Donald Trump explicitly made part of his immigration platform – is considered beyond the pale of polite discussion. Further, anyone so foolish as to attempt to argue that the interest of the American people should be considered when making immigration policy is immediately scorned and dropped into Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” from which there is no escape.

There is a second annoying aspect of the immigration debate, the tendency of immigration proponents to commit the informal logical fallacy known as appeal to pity. An appeal to pity is where one argues that you should accept his conclusion, not because of any sound logical reasoning requires that you accept it, but because you feel sorry for him. One example of this sort of argument runs, “If this man is given the death sentence, who will take care of his children?” (Norman Geisler, Come, Let Us Reason, 96). And how many times have we heard this sort of thing from immigration enthusiasts? “You can’t deport X, because you’re breaking up X’s family!” But feeling sorry for someone is not a sound basis for making immigration policy. For example, one can always reply, “Yes, but X should have considered the possibility of deportation before electing to enter the US contrary to American immigration law. No one made him violate the law. He chose to do so. Therefore, the breakup of his family is his own fault.”

Speak English

I mention all this, as the result of a story that appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer this past week titled “Immigrants fear changes in U.S. policy.” The piece was remarkable. For in the space of just a few hundred words, it managed to encapsulate much of what is wrong with the state of the current immigration debate. What follows are my comments on the story.

The article begins with an almost stereotypical appeal to pity.

Sylvia Pacheco McGuire, a U.S. citizen born in Costa Rica, knows the vulnerability and increased hostility immigrant face.

“If I had a dollar for every time someone told me, ‘This is America, speak English,’ I’d be rich,” said the married mother of two young children who lives in West Chester Township. “People are more rude to me if I am alone with my mother or my children. They don’t say as much if they see me with my husband.

This comment sets the stage for what will come later in the article, an argument to resist any move by the Trump administration to toughen immigration laws. And why should such changes be resisted? Because Americans have said mean things to Mrs. McGuire.

Apart from being an appeal to pity, there are other problems with this statement. First, there is no way of verifying what Mrs. McGuire says is true. We have to take her word for it. Now she may be telling the truth. But perhaps she’s exaggerating her experience to make a point. No one can know for sure.

She continues,

“Most people in America are supportive of diversity, but the minority is now more vocal since the election…Racism and discrimination had been on a downward trend for years. Now it is trending in the opposite direction. I hear it every day.”

This sounds damning, but apart from her own experience, which cannot be tested, Mrs. McGuire has presented no proof that racism is “trending in the opposite [upward] direction” in the US since the election of Donald Trump. In my experience, which is just as valid as hers, this is not the case at all. In fact, if there is any truth that racism is on the rise due to the election of Donald Trump, one could argue that white Americans, rather than being the perpetrators, have been on the receiving end of it.

For example, shortly after the November election. a white man was beaten by a mob of black youths, who accused him of voting for Trump, stole his car, and zoomed away from the scene, dragging the hapless victim along for the ride with hand stuck in the car door. The whole thing was filmed by the perpetrators and posted on social media.

On New Year’s there was another disturbing of anti-white, racist violence in Chicago. In this case, a young man was kidnapped and tortured over a period of 24 hours. This incident was also filmed and posted on Facebook by the perpetrators, who are clearly heard shouting at the victim “(expletive) white people, boy” and “(expletive) Donald Trump.” Such behavior could be construed as racist, but it’s not the sort of racism that fits the media’s preferred Narrative of white on black racism, so it has not been widely covered by the mainstream press. For a well-written analysis of this incident, see Dennis Praeger’s column here.

A second problem with Mrs. McGuire’s statement is that she seems to dislike a rather large segment of the American people – those who voted for Donald Trump. In so many words, she implies that they are all just a bunch of racist haters of whom all right thinking people should beware. With such obvious disdain for a large portion of the American people, is it not possible that her own attitude may be a contributing factor to the reactions she receives?

Third, while quick to tag Americans who want to see changes to current immigration law as unrepentant nativists, there is no indication from Mrs. McGuire that she has ever so much as considered the possibility that the “deplorables” may actually have legitimate concerns about immigration policy. But the enormous costs of the welfare state, the violent crimes committed by immigrants and refugees, the affirmative action racial spoils system, and the rise of multiculturalism and professional ethnic lobbyists are legitimate concerns for all Americans, regardless of their race. And all of these issues are closely tied to current policy of mass taxpayer subsidized immigration. Concern about these issues is not the mark of a racist, it’s the mark of a good citizen.

Immigrant Dignity

The article goes on to talk about the formation of a new group called Immigrant Dignity, which is reported to be “looking for way to better inform immigrant families – those with authorization and those living here without legal documentation – how to prepare for potential Trump policy changes.” In other words, one of the key functions of this newly group is to help people violate US immigration law.

For my part, I would ultimately like to see a much more open immigration system than the US currently has. But in order for that to happen, we must begin rolling back the welfare state, the affirmative action state, and change the law concerning birthright citizenship (birthright citizenship is the law that, with a few exceptions, designates any child born on US soil an American citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents).

But even though US immigration laws could be better, this is not carte blanch for foreigners to violate them. The truth is, US immigration laws are the most generous in the world. And Americans have every right to be suspicious of the motives of those who violate them as well as those who seek to abet their criminal actions.

Another interesting angle to article is that Christianity is trotted in support of those who violate immigration laws. The meeting at which Mrs. McGuire spoke was held at People’s Church in the Cincinnati neighborhood of Coryville. And the Immigrant Dignity group I wrote about above is supported in part by Cincinnati Interfaith Workers Center. According to the group website, it has organized an Immigrant Rights Committee (IRC) that trains immigrants what to do if stopped by the police, informs them of current legislation and provides “empowerment training.”

Notably absent from the list is any encouragement for the immigrants – and the context of the website strongly suggests the IRC’s target audience is illegal immigrants – to actually obey American immigration law.

But if the IRC were really interested in providing sound Christian counsel to help illegal aliens, instead of trying to help them skit the law, it would tell them clearly that those who are in the US in violation of American immigration law need to come clean and either get their immigration status straightened with the government or leave the country. As it is, the advice of this group is sinful both in the sense that they encourage the violation of civil law and thus fail to uphold the law of God – at least the Fifth commandment is in view here – and encourage others to do the same.

The 73rd General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) took the following, much more biblical stance concerning the proper course of action for the illegal immigrant,

Can an illegal alien, then, honestly promise to obey Christ when he knows that he will continue intentionally or perhaps unintentionally to break the third, fifth, eighth, and ninth commandments? We believe a credible profession of faith requires that the illegal alien seeking church membership should be willing to repent of these sins as he comes to understand them in light of God’s Word and through the ministry of the pastor/evangelist and the elders. What does this mean for the illegal alien? We believe that the illegal alien, out of a desire to serve the Lord with all that is in him, should honor the government by attempting to remedy his unlawful immigration status.

I’m not one to often quote the OPC favorably, but not only is this good spiritual advice, not only this good legal advice, but it may very well be good practical advice as well.

Americans are constantly being asked to put themselves in the shoes of immigrants, especially when it comes to those who come to this country in violation of US immigration law. But that proposition can be turned around. Maybe those who have violated US immigration law should put themselves in the shoes of American citizens.

What would they think if someone stole into their country, made demands on them as taxpayers and demonstrated against their political candidates. Is that the sort of person they would trust or want to accept as a fellow citizen? Probably not. Perhaps if those in the country illegally showed some goodwill by respecting American immigration law, Americans might be inclined to look more favorably on their circumstances.

As an American, I can understand why someone might consider coming to this country illegally. Poverty and the need to feed one’s family are powerful motivators. For my part, I do not despise someone who violates immigration law to find work. But while I understand the motivation, at the same time I cannot do not condone the action.

God has promised to provide for his people, but that provision is always a lawful provision. If someone claims to be a Christian, that person has an obligation to God and to the American people to obey American immigration law, trusting that God will provide a way for him to take care of his financial obligations in a lawful manner.

In advising as it did, the OPC did a good job applying the Ten Commandments to the immigration issue. While the law of God is binding on all, it is especially important for Christians, be they Americans or immigrants, to understand, to teach, and to live what the Word of God has to say about immigration.  That is the formula for promoting immigrant dignity.

Christian Charity And Its Imposters

The article concludes with a confused statement about charity. According to Mrs. McGuire,

“When we die, God is not going to ask you if you helped just Americans,” she said. “Jesus said, ‘Love thy neighbor.” Who is your neighbor? I know a lot of people who are churchgoers who give to charity but are against immigrants and refugees. We need to figure out how to align those things.”

Left unstated here is what the Bible has to say about charity. Christian charity is about Christians giving of their own time and financial resources to help others. But this is not the sort of help that was in view at the meeting described in the article.

In one place, a local Imam claimed he had the support of a Christian congregation, “whose leaders are committed to providing food and personal items for immigrants who might need refuge.” Christians ought to be evangelizing Muslims, not performing charity work with them. And to the extent that a Christian church yokes in ministry with Muslims, to that extent it has betrayed Christ Jesus himself.

Another representative at the meeting, a CPS teacher and teachers’ union organizer, is leading a movement to “make Cincinnati Public Schools building and campuses sanctuary spaces.” While the article is short on details as to what exactly this means, one can surmise that supporters of this move want to use taxpayer supported schools to abet the violation of immigration law. How much such actions will cost taxpayers is not made clear, but it would be safe to suppose the amount is something more than zero. This is not charity as the Bible defines it. And those who support the use of taxpayer funds or the use of school facilities to abet the breaking of immigration laws are guilty of violating both the public trust and the law of God.

Summary And Conclusion

Press coverage concerning the immigration issue is in a woeful state. In the mythology of the mainstream media, the interests of angelic immigrants are pitted against the reflexive bigotry of nativists, haters, and now, Trump voters.

But upon examination, many of the common pro-immigrant arguments put forward are found to be fallacious. Appeals to pity are common. Further, the agendas of many groups that claim to be pro-immigrant clash with both US law and biblical commandments. Ultimately, the advice proffered by these supposedly pro-immigrant groups is destructive to the very same people they claim they want to help.

Further, the best interests of the American people, who ultimately foot the bill for the current mass immigration mess, are rarely if ever considered. If an American does publically object, he is quickly relegated to the basket of deplorables.

Doubtless, the American immigration system can be improved. As one who believes in limited, constitutional government, far be it from me to advocate for a bigger and more complex immigration bureaucracy. But if the ultimate goal is to make immigration easier, the best interests of the American people must be more than an afterthought.

Among other things, this means ending the one-way immigration debate. It is high time that the legitimate concerns of the American people about immigration be greeted with something more than “talk to the hand.” Further, it means dismantling laws that allow immigrants, migrants and refugees to impose their costs on the nation’s taxpayers. There is no constitutional or biblical justification for the welfare state. It is bad enough when the government takes money from one American and gives it to another. It is at least as bad, and perhaps even worse, when the Americans are forced to support those who are not even citizens.