Killing with kindness

I notice, no doubt coincidentally, that a day after I did a little post on illegal immigration, Tom Ascol did a post.

http://www.founders.org/blog/2006/04/immigration-fiasco.html

I’m glad to see Christian bloggers address themselves to social ethics instead of playing it safe by spending all their time in a theological ghetto.

In addition, I have no doubt that Ascol is a better man and a finer Christian than I. That said, I find his reasoning practically, theological, and morally muddled at various points.

Among other things he says the following:

“What do you say to a woman who has been converted through the ministry of the church who wants to be baptized and join the church, but is living with a man who is not legally her husband? He was her husband for 15 years in their native South American country. But because it was easier for them to get visas into the USA as unmarried people, they divorced, came over here, discovered that "nobody in America takes marriage seriously," and so decided simply to live together. Then the Lord saved her, but not her (ex)husband. Now he is unwilling to marry her legally.”

The basic problem with this example is that it fails to distinguish between the role of the church and the role of the state.

What Tom is talking about here is a sheer legal technicality without any moral complicity where the wife is concerned. How is this relevant to church membership policy?

Is Tom saying that the state, through its immigration laws, ought to effectively set policy for church membership?

Does Tom think that immigration legislation should anticipate and provide for various contingencies that might come up in church membership? This is especially odd coming as it does from a Baptist.

“What do you say to a young man who has come to Christ through the church's outreach and wants to be baptized and join but whose visa has expired? He wants to become legal but every avenue he has pursued has resulted in a dead end. Talk of various types of amnesty has kept him hopeful, but he is here illegally.”

I would merely reiterate my prior remarks.

“What about the devoted Christian family that were working through what they were told was a legal channel to pursue permanent residency only to discover that they were scammed and are now left with no passport, visa, or any other form of legal identification. When we contacted legal authorities we were simply told that they were "small fish" and that, though it is unlikely, there is a slight possibility that in 10 years or so their case might come to light and receive some attention.”

Sounds to me like someone should be prosecuted.

That said, assuming that Tom is alluding to an illegal Mexican couple, aren’t they already citizens of another country? What’s wrong with living in the country of your birth?

There are some exceptions, of course. One thinks of the plight of persecuted Christians around the world.

But why assume that someone has a right of permanent residency is a foreign land? Do I have a right to live in Switzerland or Tuscany or Monte Carlo?

“Living in Southwest Florida has sensitized me to the severe mistreatment that many immigrants experience both officially and unofficially. It is common to read in the local paper about immigrants who were robbed and/or beaten but who refused to call police out of fear of what might happen to them. Unscrupulous people take advantage of their fear and misunderstanding of the immigration laws and bilk them out of large sums of money.”

Well, I lived in Southern California for 4 years (1999-2003). It’s not as of men like me who oppose amnesty are simply out of touch.

“I am a law and order guy. I believe that laws should be obeyed and lawbreakers should be punished. But when laws are unjust or unjustly applied, it is impossible to maintain a black and white perspective.”

I agree with Tom invoking an unjust law begs the question. The primary question is whether we have good laws or not. If the law is the very thing at issue, then appealing to the law to justify the policy misses the point.

“In the parable of The Good Samaritan Jesus explains what it means to love your neighbor as yourself. It involves showing social justice to those who are in no position to help themselves. While the Samaritan may not have broken any laws in his deeds of kindness, he certainly did go against the social conventions of his day by helping a despised Jew. "Go and do likewise" is our Master's instruction to us. I think this applies the the immigrants--legal and illegal--that are among us.”

How does that apply to our situation? Was Jesus a fan of big government? Social programs for the poor? Public education? Needle-exchange programs?

Like everyone else I’ve heard on Tom’s side of the fence, they never—and I do mean “never”—address the source of the problem. The problem is not with their treatment in the United State.

The problem, rather, is with their treatment in Mexico. Why are they coming here in the first place? What’s wrong with Mexico? Why is Mexico such a rotten place to live? Why can’t you make a decent wage in Mexico?

What is really needed has a lot less do to with legal reform in America than it does with economic reform in Mexico. Mexican politics, not American politics, is the root-cause of the problem.

With all due respect, if the Toms of the world were really so concerned with the plight of poor Mexicans, and if they felt that legislation was the answer, then why don’t they lobby Congress or the White House to take measures that would address the source of the problem south of the border? Why treat this as a domestic policy problem instead of a foreign policy problem, anyway?

What’s so bad about Mexico? It has a great piece of real estate. A great climate for agriculture (e.g. fruits, vegetables, coffee, cotton).

Rich in natural resources (e.g. silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, timber).

A double coastline (9,330 km) and a sunny climate—making it a magnet for tourism.

Mexico has a much better piece of real estate than our neighbors to the north.

The problem is corruption. Why don’t Mexicans do something about that?

Like the Ron Siders of the world, Tom does a lot of heart-felt emoting about the plight of the poor without offering any practical economic solutions.

Tom is also disregarding the fact that, in Biblical ethics, our social obligations are concentric. My social obligations are first and foremost for the care of my own family (cf. Mt 15:4-6; 1 Tim 5:4-8), not yours.

As it is, middle-class wage earners have a hard time supporting their own families. And one reason is because they are having to support a social welfare system—which is simply a form of income redistribution.

Does Tom think that middle-class wage earners don’t need the money they make to live on? Is it something for government to garnish and pass around at will?

There is also the fact that Mexico is a major conduit for the drug trade.

There is the further fact that Mexico is a funnel violent street gangs, and not just the garden-variety gang, but organized crime.

There is the additional fact that illegals can kill Americans, then cross the border, knowing that Mexico will not extradite the suspect of a capital offense. (This is also true with respect to Canada.)

Does Tom think imagine Latinos are the only victims of porous borders? Anglos are victims, too Tom.

Is Tom of the opinion that our government does not have a primary mandate to defend its citizens against a crimination infiltration from a foreign power?

What, exactly, does Tom think the first duty of government is, anyway?

“I pray that the current debate in Congress will result in laws that are more just and enforceable. I personally hope that some kind of guestworker plan is included.”

Why does Tom favor a guest-worker program? Does he believe that Americans weren’t working any of these jobs before they were co-opted by Mexican labor?

Does Tom think that Americans don’t need blue-collar jobs? Does he think that Anglos should have the white-collar jobs while Latinos have the blue-collar jobs?

There was, within my own lifetime, a time when a blue-collar worker on a single income could sustain a middle class standard of living.

Tom is very charitable with someone else’s bread and butter.

“But regardless of what comes out of Washington DC, my greater prayer is that the churches of Jesus Christ in this land will lead the way in showing love to those who are the strangers and aliens among us.”

Yes, well I wish that Tom’s analysis wasn’t so recklessly one-sided.

Tom means well, but so did LBJ.