Immigration Connection

Check out this article by David Drury that relates especially to a course we are offering at Wesley Seminary in May that will train a person to help someone move toward legal status. It is part of God's mission to care for those who are stuck in the middle.

Immigration Reform

It is deeply unfortunate that we now find ourselves in a situation where it will be very hard for many Christians in America to think anything but that immigration reform is of the Devil. David Drury, the Chief of Staff at Wesleyan denominational headquarters, put it this way: "The details and ramifications of such executive orders will be worked out over some time and should be discussed at length."

That is to say, it is appropriate to debate whether the President has the authority to by-pass Congress on this issue. Joe Donnelly, Senator from Indiana, who earlier voted in favor of immigration reform, put it this way: "I am as frustrated as anyone that Congress is not doing its job," but "only Congress has the ability to change the law to fix it."

The problem is that it will now be very difficult for many American Christians to support immigration reform at all. Why? Because many American Christians can't tell the difference between being a certain kind of Republican and being Christian. Well-intentioned to be sure, many American Christians can't clearly see where their faith ends and a particular form of Republicanism begins. It's called civil religion, and it is a major problem in the American church.

So it will be hard for many Wesleyans to remember that they overwhelmingly voted to support a statement on immigration by the Wesleyan Church at the last general conference. Would we get the same vote today, since it is now so closely associated with President Obama? That is to say, would the political dynamics of the current situation override the church's Christian sensibilities?

David Drury makes three points:

1. We should vote for compassion over our political parties.
Why do those at my church HQ strongly support immigration reform? It's because they actually know people caught in the current limbo. Perhaps they face being ripped away from their children. Perhaps their country of origin is extremely violent. Perhaps they were brought here when they were a baby and wouldn't even know what to do in the country they were born in. Some may not even speak the language of the country in which they were born.

Those at Wesleyan HQ actually know these people. They are in our church. So this is not some abstract, philosophical discussion for them. This is about real people. This is Jesus with a real person in front of him, someone naked who needs clothed.

Some of these individuals were brought here as children and didn't even make a choice to come. Others broke a law that seemed as insignificant to them as breaking the speed limit is for some of us (so should we have them pay a fine for breaking the speed limit?). Others just didn't leave after their visas expired. Think of the 43 students who were murdered in Mexico last week. Would you go back?

I believe that most Wesleyans would feel exactly the same if these real people in real situations were right in front of them.

2. Drury called for immigration reform.
I lament that the situation has now become so polarized. In such situations, carnal human nature hardens. Will Congress pass immigration reform now, or will they stubbornly now refuse even more than ever? There was a by-partisan bill passed by the Senate. Because of the political climate, how many of those who even voted for immigration reform would be in jeopardy to do so now? I bet even Joe Donnelly of Indiana would have to decide whether he could get away with voting for it a second time. My own representative, Susan Brooks might have voted for it before but I bet she'll have a hard time doing it now.

One thing Wesleyans can do is tell their representatives that the best way to stick it to Obama is to pass immigration reform and make it legal.

3. Finally, Drury urges Wesleyans to be part of the solution rather than the problem.
Of course carnal human nature is now going to be more opposed to immigration reform than ever. Obama beats his chest; the carnal reaction is to beat ours in response. But that's not the Christian response. The Christian response is to seek God's will, not to get back at the enemy.

I admire David Drury. It can't be popular in some Wesleyan circles to respond in this way. I know there will be a vocal minority who will grumble about this statement he made.

What I've found at every General Conference these last fifteen years, though, is that the church does the right thing anyway. I know the thirty somethings who will be leading our church in fifteen years. They will strongly resonate with this message of compassion.

Lincoln, "Lure of Politics" 2

I'm in the third chapter of Team of Rivals about Lincoln and his cabinet team of Republican rivals.

Previous posts:
1. Lead up to election
2. Family background of Lincoln and rivals
3a. Lure of Politics for Edward Bates

Again, the third chapter talks about the entrance of the four men of the book into politics.  This week I read the section of the chapter on William Seward. I also saw the movie Lincoln by Spielberg this past weekend.  Seward's character in the movie was not as I imagined him, so I'll bracket that image as I continue reading in this book by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Seward, if you remember, was the governor of New York for 2 terms (1838-42).  He was a Whig, the precursor to the Republican party.  It is quite interesting to me that so many of the values of the Republican party back then are more the values of the Democratic party right now.  I resonate strongly with the values of the original Republican party and am one of the many lifetime Republicans who is quite alienated by the party's emphases right now.

For example, the Whigs/Republicans stood for things like

• unionism (versus excessive state's rights), 
• internal improvements (roads, bridges, infrastructure--things that helped markets back then), 
• anti-slavery (and thus pro-the rights of disempowered groups that today would translate into civil rights, immigration rights, and the pro-life movement as long as it takes seriously the lives of the women having the babies as well)
• better public schools

It would be wrong to say that all southerners today are against such things.  When I went to Southern Wesleyan, the good Wesleyan folk who were my professors were pretty much on the same page politically as I am today.  I would argue that they are the most Wesleyan values and that a good deal of the grass roots Wesleyan church has strayed into foreign territory.

Seward seemed to wrestle significantly with balancing his political ambitions with his devotion to family.  His wife did not travel with him to the state house in New York and their relationship seemed to falter as an ambiguous friend of Seward (Tracy) was at first smothered Seward himself and then got too friendly with his wife Francis.

Seward was a principled man.  He was strongly against slavery and in fact hurt New York's trade with Virginia by refusing to turn over two freed slaves who had tried to smuggle a runaway slave out of Virginia.  He did allow the runaway to be returned, following the Constitution.

He got into problems with strong anti-catholics by trying to provide education for Irish and German catholic immigrants. This made him an enemy of the "nativists" and possibly lost him the Republican nomination won by Lincoln.

Horace Greeley wrote of his second election as governor that he would "henceforth be honored more for the three thousand votes he has lost, considering the causes, than for all he has received in his life" (84). Seward lost those votes for his stand against slavery and for providing education to all, even dirty, no good immigrants.

Immigration Reform

I want to praise Marcus Rubio today for a few reasons.  First, I appreciate those who are willing to meet in the middle to get things done.  Second, I commend that he is smart enough to realize that Republicans will continue to lose elections by increasing margins around the country if they don't change their tune on immigrants.

Most of all, it's hard for me not to think that the "path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants without a criminal record is not only the most civilized and humane option, not only the most American option, but the most Christian option.  I realize it is not without its complications--it inadvertently encourages more illegal immigration.

But it has the right spirit.  America at its best has always welcomed peaceful immigrants who want to be a part of us. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, and God insists on protection of the stranger in the land, since the Israelites were once strangers in Egypt.  Objections usually either sound morally immature or even like pretenses hiding deeper motives that aren't so pretty. Not always the case, of course, but I suspect more often than not.

And since this potential legislation fits with the Wesleyan Church's white paper on the topic, I'm allowed to take sides. :-)

Status Quo

After billions of dollars and two years of anguish, we are left where we began.  Obama is president again. The Republicans are in control of the House, and the Democrats are in control of the Senate.

House Republicans have already signaled that there will be no taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  That means that the cliff of automatic defense and other cuts loom at the end of the year without any clear avoidance.  The Tea Partiers won't compromise.  It's not clear that Obama will compromise on the tax issue any more.  Scarily, it looks like we may face two more years of gridlock again.

The Health Care debate is over.  It will go into effect.  There will be no repeal.  It is a non-issue from this point on.

The Republican Party will try to reorient itself around Latinos.  I think a lot of Republicans will shift in favor of the Dream Act, and we will see bipartisan immigration reform early next year.

The economy will continue to improve unless Congress does something stupid (which is possible).  It was going to improve no matter who was elected because the economic crisis is over.  If Romney had been elected, it would have continued to improve.  It will continue to improve under Obama unless gridlock kills it, which is possible.

The national debt now remains THE major issue.  If the Democrats are smart (and we'll have to see), they will focus a lot of energy on debt reduction these next four years or else their goose is cooked in 2016--unless of course the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot like they did this time.

There will of course be no more bail-outs because they were a one time, bi-partisan emergency move during the greatest recession since the Great Depression.  They will not come up again, barring another global economic crisis.

America is not moving in a socially conservative direction.  For example, all the most socially conservative candidates on the issue of abortion lost.  I think evangelicals have a choice to make.  The frontal assault is a losing battle.  What if we tried to influence by example rather than force to convert? I personally believe that is the Wesleyan way.

Living the Love Command: Immigration

Warning: This post may be annoying to some.  Walk away as desired.  I am filling in a gap in a chapter in the Jesus book on applying the command to love one's neighbor.
______________
What does it mean to live out Jesus' priorities today, especially for those who live in the United States with its current issues? An important warning should precede any controversial discussion of this sort. Principles and values are one thing. Playing them out politically is something quite different.

I have often found that when there is significant debate over an issue and the issue seems like a slam dunk to me, I'm probably missing something. There are usually extremely intelligent people on every major side of a debate, and presumably every one of them sees something true in the debate. Usually, if we can calm down and actually listen to each other, everyone can gain something.

I also believe we as humans are prone to blind spots. We are prone to rationalize our true motivations, to make ourselves seem purer and more noble than we are. We are prone to take positions based on the "herd" to which we belong rather than sound reasoning. We are prone to oversimplify things and make things black and white that are actually gray.

So what would Jesus' values be in relation to an issue like illegal immigration?  Those who are most in favor of hard core tactics in relation to illegal immigrants usually say things like, "These are people who are breaking the law who must be punished."  "These are people who are taking away the jobs of the people who actually are from here." "These people bring drugs and criminal activity into the US."

It seems to me that it is appropriate for a country to be careful who comes in and out of its borders, to protect its people.  The spirit of Jesus surely values protecting the innocent in one's own country, as well as those in other countries! But it is hard to hear Jesus saying anything in the previous paragraph. Should there be laws about borders and should there be enforcement of those laws? Surely. But when the response to something is out of proportion to the cause, something else is going on, something psychological and beneath the surface.

Jesus never put law over people. Rather, he disregarded the law when it came into conflict with people, as we've seen. And there is often not a little hypocrisy in those who like the "law" argument when it comes to the issue of immigration. Do you speed? Do you fudge on your income taxes. Do you ever use the stop sign rule, "No cop; no stop"?

There is nothing intrinsically more significant to the imaginary line between the US and Canada than the sign that says 55mph or the law to wear your seat belt.  It is a man-made line, a legitimate one, but one created by one people to keep other people out. Immigration laws are human-made laws, not divine laws. Such laws change regularly, unlike biblical instruction about adultery or falsely accusing someone.

No one who reads the gospels on their own terms could conclude that Jesus would let a stranger in the land starve to death, a value deeply ingrained in the Old Testament Law (e.g., Exod. 22:21; Lev. 25:35). If an immigrant commits a violent crime, s/he should be prosecuted for the crime, not for being an immigrant, whether legal or not. Certainly there should be some consequence for a person being in the country illegally.  Otherwise laws over boundaries become meaningless.And there is a legitimate argument that making too many exceptions to a law only encourages more law breaking.

But one has to suspect that the furor over immigration that arises from time to time is as much about immigration, period, as it is about illegal immigration. This is the case because this is not a new story. It is a story that has been repeated all over the world time and time again throughout history. It happened when the Irish came to America. It happened when Italians came to America or the Chinese. Americans still tell Polack jokes as an artifact of an earlier immigration wave.

What is usually going on in these situations is a fear of the other and a fear of how the other group might change our traditions and our ways of life. The only thing new about Hispanic immigration today is the fact that white Americans may not be in the majority in the future.  Of course there really is no such thing as "white."  "White" is simply the word we use for all the non-African, non-Asian past immigrants who have been here long enough to blend together--English, Irish, German, Swedish, Dutch, and a host of others.

Jesus would demand that we not judge others because of how they look. I have a number of family members who were born and raised in the United States but who have one parent from a foreign country. Some of them have darker skin than others. Those with the darker skin get stopped more often by the police and sometimes get followed around in stores. Again, you cannot be a true follower of Jesus and approach others in this way.

Jesus would demand that we love the illegal immigrant and that the consequences of illegality in our laws be just but loving.  If our legislators were ever to cross the line, then Jesus’ example is one of law-breaking. The founders of my church were abolitionists, who were willing to break the law of the land when the lives of slaves were at stake. In the same way, it is possible that there would be a time when our commitment to Jesus’ values would require civil disobedience on matters relating to immigrant individuals.

It is not my intention to try to spell out precisely what that would look like or exactly what circumstances would call for that sort of action. It is only to say that in God’s eyes, it is just as important for the immigrant to have a job as the citizen. The foreigner is every bit as important to God as the person born in the USA. And if the foreigner is God’s child, s/he is more deserving of God’s blessing than the natural born.

In the News...

A number of things in the news of some significance.

First, a German court ruled that parents could not circumcise their children because of the potential bodily harm without the consent of the child. It is unclear to me what real effect this ruling actually will have in the German legal system, but it reflects the perennial struggle between religious freedom and government as an arbiter of individual rights. Do Jewish and Muslim parents have the right to have their children circumcised when a child is too young to have a say in the decision?  The potential religious consequences of this discussion are staggering.

It reminds us of recent debates over whether a public catholic institution must provide insurance to its employees that involves contraception or previous decisions about providing life-saving intravenous blood transfusions to children of Seventh Day Adventists.  Or can a photographer refuse to shoot a gay wedding on the basis of religious principle?  I do suspect that we will do better in the future if we focus on rights to follow our own religious beliefs rather than expending our energies trying to force the rest of America to follow our religious beliefs.

Second, there was the recent decision of the Obama administration not to deport individuals who would otherwise have been able to stay in the country if the Dream Act had passed.  It's clearly a political move on Obama's part in light of the coming election, but it is also clearly something he believes in and tried to get passed earlier.

Finally, there were the Supreme Court rulings on Obamacare today.  I am not expert enough to know whether the health care law will be beneficial or not.  One thing is sure, there is no such thing as complete objectivity. I would like to think that Supreme Court justices are more objective than the vast majority of people.   But they regularly disappoint what "both sides" think is objective. ;-)

Translation of Immigration Satire

Apparently some actually thought I was expressing my actual opinions in my immigration satire the other day.  I chose satire because it has an effect that argument does not.  It was meant to be funny--although I also understand that sometimes humor hits a little too close to home.  I have no doubt but that Mike Delph and his supporters are not idiots like I portrayed in this piece.  If Hoosiers are really illiterate and small minded, then I am too--I was born here and have worked here for the last 14 years.

The satire meant to expose--potentially, if the shoe fit--the hidden motivations and inconsistencies of the heart.  Often what we say are our reasons, are not our real reasons, and we don't always even realize it.  The other nice thing about humorous satire is that it does not require accuracy.  For example, I recognize that illegal immigration is a problem that should be addressed.  If you were to stereotype my actual positions as the opposite extreme to the satire, for example, you would be wrong.

So let me be more literal.  Let me translate the satire for those who actually believed I was expressing my real opinions.

First, Jesus is my Christ, my Lord, my king.  The last point was meant to show precisely how unChrist-like I think the current trend toward foreigners in America is, a xenophobia aggravated by 9-11 and typical of wartime periods.  This paragraph was absolutely not my feeling--it was exactly the opposite of my feeling.  Why do it, you say?  Why say such vile things?  Because I wanted to express in stark terms exactly what these attitudes represent in relation to Christ and the Bible.  They are as un-Christian as the attitudes in the satire, a slap in the face to Christ and the Bible.  Sometimes Christians adopt such positions without even realizing it and this paragraph was meant to be a wake-up call.

The "rule of law" argument will bear some weight.  There is no point in having laws against coming into the country illegally if they are meaningless.  However, we make the laws.  The rule of law is not some Platonic ideal.  And Delph wants to make more.  To oppose Delph's laws is not to oppose the rule of law, for they are not the rule of law now. He is wanting to add laws.  And was Reagan going against the rule of law when he made a path for citizenship in the 80s?  Apparently not, since it was done legally.

Even more to the point, why now, why this motivation to kick people out unceremoniously?  I don't think anyone could give me a good reason other than majority fear.  I strongly suspect that most of the nice sounding words here is nothing but smokescreen, hiding darkness.  Let's be honest.  This is not about Hungarians.  It's about people from Mexico.  They're not terrorists.  They're not here to break into our houses.  Again, it's all smokescreen.

I've never quite understood the fervor of the "speak our language" argument.  Maybe it's because I like to learn the languages of other people.  Maybe it's because I like to travel to other places and learn their way of life.  Sure, visitors are going to have to learn some English to do well here.  Probably someone should have to speak a fair amount of English to be a US citizen.  But I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the kind of legislation we're talking about here is anything other than "sticking it to them."

So there you have it.  Schenck in translation.  Should I apologize for writing a piece of rhetoric that was so effective that it really ticked some people off?  No, I should not.  Should I apologize for standing up for a people group that is currently oppressed in America, like Jesus did 2000 years ago?  Absolutely not--in no uncertain terms! 

I will apologize if anyone felt hated by what I posted.  And I will apologize to those don't get satire and actually thought I was serious.  That's why there was a smiley face at the beginning. ;-)  Those who actually know me, know that I was laughing the whole time I wrote the piece.  I'm sorry if some of you only saw a scowl.

5 Cheers for Mike Delph and Immigration Reform ;-)

I just realized five reasons why I should support the "Arizona style" immigration bill that Mike Delph got through the Indiana Senate today.

First, I know I'm not smart enough to learn another language, so I'll never know whether those people are talking about me.  I'm frightened when I'm around people who are different from me and they're saying things I don't understand.  Whatever happened to the Mid-West as a place of monolithic rural culture and one room school houses?  I want the good old days back!

In fact, I think no one should be allowed to speak any language but English within the borders of the country, and, as I think they've introduced in Texas, we should not be teaching any foreign languages on the tax payer's bill.  Why should I be asked to pay for someone to learn someone else's language?

And why limit it to illegal immigrants?  I think we should send all immigrants back to wherever they came from.  We should send the Chinese back to Africa where they came from, and Mexicans back to Cuba.  Mike, I'm with you!

Secondly, I'm afraid they're going to mug me.  You know, Chinese, Canadians, Mexa-ricans, blacks.  I keep an eye on anyone who looks like they wouldn't have attended my Hoosier high school basketball games (that is, from my school--sometimes there were, you know, on the other teams that visited).  You just can't trust foreigners and, you know.  We need to send them all back because you just know they are waiting for you to let your guard down.  I can hardly sleep worrying that some foreigner is going to break into my house.  I'm with you, Mike!

Thirdly, I'm afraid they're going to take my job.  I moonlight as a janitor at a local Motel 6 and you don't know how many cleaning jobs I got passed on because some foreigner beat me to it.  I don't care whether they were legal or not.  Whites should get first dibs.  I'm with you, Mike!

Fourthly, a law is a law.  I don't care that your parents brought you here when you were two months old and you don't speak Hungarian.  Back to Hungary for you!  I think J-walkers should be thrown in jail too, along with all those people who fudge on their income taxes.  A law is a law--we're going to throw you into jail if you make personal copies on the company printer because we believe in justice here.

Better yet, let's send anyone who ever breaks any law to Guantanamo or some new island we'll call "ILLEGAL LAND."  No, wait, we'll send them all to California, which hardly counts as American anyway. I'm with Michelle Bachmann, let's send all the un-American lawbreakers to California and then drop it in the ocean.  I'm with you, Mike!

Finally, I'm with Mike.  Jesus didn't know what the heck he was talking about.  The Sermon on the Mount--what a bunch of bunk!  And give a child a cup of water--if you're not legal or don't speak my language, no way you're getting water from me.  That's justice, baby!  That stuff in the Law about the stranger in the land; that stuff in the Prophets about the poor, the orphan, and the widow; that stuff Jesus said in the gospels--I've got one word for you: L-I-B-E-R-A-L!  If that's Christianity, Glenn Beck and I want nothing to do with it.

I'm with you, Mike!  We're Hoosiers.  Education's for those liberal states like New York and California.

[For those who thought I was actually serious, here is the translation]

Wesleyans and the DREAM Act

Last night the House passed the DREAM Act.  Today the Senate may not.  I was thinking it provided a possible test case for Arminian vs. Calvinist theology in action.  Gabriel Salguero, who is a Nazarene in the Wesleyan tradition, who teaches at Princeton, and who is one of several helping us contextualize our Missional Course into Spanish, has been one of several engaged with the White House on this bill.  Similarly, Norm Wilson, a Wesleyan who teaches in IWU's undergraduate program, has been encouraging Wesleyans to support the bill.

What is the bill?

The bill addresses individuals whose parents brought them illegally to the United States before they were 18.  Such individuals often are far more American than, say, Mexican.  In some cases, they might not even remember Mexico, might not know how to survive in Mexico, have nowhere to go in Mexico.  In some cases their parents have been deported and they are just floating around here.  Maybe they have gone through our public schools and they mainly know our way of life.

In short, these are individuals in a kind of limbo.  Legally, they do not belong here.  Culturally, they may belong here far more than in some other place.

The DREAM act gives them a path to legality.  They can enroll in college or the military for two years and if they demonstrate they are profitable members of society, they can become legal.  The key criteria are that they have lived here for at least 5 years and came here before they were 18.

So how does the flavor of your Christian theology potentially affect your attitude toward this issue.

CALVINIST: Because the rules and God's justice are the main thing for the Calvinist, I suspect Calvinists will have a tendency to want to see us stick it to these kids.  Tough luck Charlie.  Your parents broke the rules and so you have to pay.  We're going to send you back where you belong and if you have a hard time there, well, your parents should have thought of that before they broke the rules.

ARMINIAN: In God's eyes, you are just as important as I am.  Legal, illegal, they are precious in his sight.  The goal is redemption.  What separates you from me is a piece of paper.  I will do to you what I would have you do to me.  If it were me, I would have nowhere clear to go and a potentially dangerous and unknown path to a place that has become a foreign land to me.  If it were me, I would want you to have mercy on me and let me make a go for myself, let me contribute something to your society, which I would own as my society.  I suspect that the true Arminian would be biased to be sympathetic to this Act--only the details would then lead me to be against it.

I don't think there are any such details in this case.  This Act is all about biases.  Are you a legalist without compassion?  You will tend to be knee jerk against it.  I think anyone with the heart of Christ will have a bias toward passing it.

Trying to Think Christianly about Immigration

On my way back from Christmas break, my family and I stopped at a hotel for the night in Tennesee. In the morning, I noticed that a middle aged Hispanic woman was servicing the breakfast items they had out.

Given the recent discussion of immigration, the thought crossed my mind--I wonder if she's legal. I figured she probably was, because I would be very nervous about such a public job if I wasn't.

But what if she was undocumented? It's possible. I pictured a life of increasing fear. Maybe she has children. What if she finds herself unable to get a driver's license? How would she get to work? What if she gets fired? How will she feed her family? What if she has been here for decades and doesn't have any home to go back to?

The American government has looked the other way on this issue for years and years. For some of us, we are only now thinking about these things. But it has been acceptable to look the other way on these things for decades. The government has known about fake Social Security cards and other mechanisms of underground immigration forever. They might seem like new news to us, but this is big time old news.

So you can understand if I feel that it's not a little hypocritical to get "righteously indignant" about this issue all of a sudden. It would be like the Wesleyan Church suddenly revoking the membership of Wesleyans who go to movies after decades of a rule on the books that almost no one paid any attention to. Shall we suddenly start imprisoning individuals who violate blue laws where they are still on the books? Shall we make homosexuals do prison time? It's still on the books in Texas.

Shall we throw Rosa Parks in prison for not getting out of her seat? It was against the law.

We as America have been complicit in creating this problem, and it is not a little hypocritical to pretend as if they are fully to blame when we have not acted like these were important rules.

And what of the individuals whose lives are suddenly ghetto-ized by new rules. Some have lived here for decades peacefully, working minimum wage jobs. Many have children in our public schools who were born here--they are US citizens. Many have no home back in Mexico to go back to--this is where they had moved to spend the rest of their lives.

If some politicians get their way, the unintended result will be a ghetto-izing of this group--real men, women, and children--not completely unlike what the Nazis did intentionally to the Jews. No jobs--how will they eat? (Answer: Christians will feed them in violation of the law because it is better to serve God than mortals) No cars--how will they be able to get outside their "fence"?

They have broken a law. Have any of us broken a law? Anyone ever received a speeding ticket? Did you know that walking on a train track is trespassing on Federal property? Let's look at the income tax filings of the most vociferous voices on this issue. I guarantee many of them regularly violate the law more most of these families looking for a better life.

And law in Mexico is not like we imagine law to be in the United States. We often ignore speed limits, but we do it at least half willing to pay the consequences. In Mexico, the law is sometimes a matter of bribery. It does not have the ideological status it has here. The effect is that the intentionality of entering does not have the significance for them that we are (currently) assigning to it.

But the title of this post is trying to think Christianly about this subject. Thus far I have only tried to highlight some blind spots and hypocrisy in the current debate. Let me now get out my Bible and go looking for some principals:

1. God is no respecter of persons.
Americans are not more valuable or important to God than Mexicans. God looks on the heart. In God's eyes, we are not worth a dime more than any one of them. Did you know that my church has Hispanic churches? Could anyone in any of them be undocumented? Let's turn them over the government. (Really, the Wesleyan Church has those kinds of churches--I thought you all were good white Christians?)

I have no doubt but that there is a healthy dose of prejudice in play here. We can blah, blah, blah and rationalize it. "I know they are just as valuable in God's eyes, but there are consequences for breaking the law." It's very hard for me to see this kind of comment as anything but a rationalization of prejudice. Multiplication of words does not the truth make.

So fine them and make them become legal--that's a consequence.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
How would you want to be treated if you lived below the poverty line but had it better here than in Mexico? Maybe you would like to become legal but the possibility of deportation keeps you from it. The bottom line is that most people do not put illegals in the same category as themselves at all. They think of them more along the lines of animals that need to be run off the property.

3. Christ died for the whole world.
People who think Christianly think redemptively--how can we minister God's grace to those whose lives are broken on every level. An obvious answer is to help them come in to the fold. It is not, let us send them as far away from the gospel as we can.

If I had any political power? I'd try to secure the borders and make a path to citizenship for those who truly want to be a part of the great American experiment. Teach them English, sure.

So, Schenck, you believe in "amnesty"--that dirty word. Funny how the politicians are so concerned not to get this label. Who cares? I'm not interested in what you call something; I'm interested in what Jesus would do.

And what Jesus did was bring "good news to the poor, sight to the blind, liberty to the captives." The elder brother might chastise his dad for reaching out to his brother, make him pay for the wrong things he did. Jesus cares more for 1 lost sheep than for 99 middle class white American Christians.