What Are We Afraid Of? April 29
When I fly into New York these days–as I often do now–I often see the Statue of Liberty when I land. I often think about what I learned about the United States when I was growing up–"send me your huddled masses." Lady Liberty invites people of the nations to come. Nothing says this more powerfully than what sits next to her.
When I fly into New York these days–as I often do now–I often see the Statue of Liberty when I land. I often think about what I learned about the United States when I was growing up–"send me your huddled masses." Lady Liberty invites people of the nations to come. Nothing says this more powerfully than what sits next to her. You see in New York next to the Statue sits Ellis Island. It is one of our nation's most fascinating parks and in the past her most significant entryway, a tribute to immigration (and even the debate that went on about it generations ago is traced there at a wonderful national park well worth visiting). My own family came to the US through Ellis Island decades ago. I remember visiting that park years ago and wondering what it must have been like to come to a new land with nothing but hope–and have a chance to get it. That was apparently then.
Now I see a nation where many are angry and afraid. Rather than seeking to deal constructively with what is admittedly a difficult immigration situation by really trying to fix what is and has been wrong with immigration, we are seeking to pass laws that make us look mean and exclusionary (even if it is, as its framers claim, not the intent). We ask police to do things they do not normally do (or at least have not done up until now). We risk ignoring how people were asked to come (yes, even as illegals) years ago. We risk splitting families. We risk ignoring how many of those who came have taken on roles many of us did not want that enable many of us to do what we do. We risk failing to see that a great majority of those who have come have lived here peaceably, have sought to help their families, and give their children opportunities they never had. We forget they came for many of the reasons our ancestors came. Apparently it was good enough for us and our ancestors then, but it is no longer good enough now.
I mention this in a theological-cultural blog because in the Bible there is a care and concern for the foreigner and alien in the land. We are risking not only turning our back on Lady Liberty but by this response we risk turning our back on the Judeo-Christian values that many claim should concern us as a society. Maybe some of those who support these new efforts merely to enforce our laws have failed to recognize or learn this historical and theological background. Were and are the laws we have flawed in how they were handled and applied, contributing to the mess we have now that needs fixing? Is the way currently being pursued really a reflection of our national and societal values?
Our seminary's current issue of KIndred Spirit focuses on immigration. You can get a copy through our web site at: www.dts.edu. These articles were written before the latest debate around the current legislation. They seek to give biblical perspective on these issues. Or one might check out the recent book by M. Daniel Carroll-Rodas, Christians at the Border. It seeks to give biblical background and historical perspective to the current situation and how we got here. I ask myself what as a society makes us now want to build walls between people rather than the bridges Lady Liberty and Ellis Island so eloquently represent? Should we really turn our back on who we have been? Should we would turn our back on one of the things best about our past that has made us into what we are in the present? What are we afraid of?
17 Comments
Philip Murray
Your trip to Apostles Church in NYC May 14th
Good day, Dr. Bock. I'm chaptering the local NYC Reasonable Faith initiative of Dr. Wm. Craig. I'd love to grab a cup of coffee with you if you had some time during your visit. I could make myself available anytime at your convenience since I live here. In any event, looking forward to seeing you in NYC soon. Yours truly, Philip Murray
Darrell L. Bock
Trip to NYC dlb
Philip:
very doable.
dlb
Michael07
Not afraid to uphold the law
How would Rom 13 be addressed in this situation? Wouldn't that be the Biblical solution? Are the illegals not to obey our laws? Or are we to give them a "pass?" The statue represents freedom and liberty. But you cannot have those without upholding the law! My family came here too yet entered Legally. We welcome anyone to this contry legally. Why is it harsh to expect people to uphold the law? To me this is a slippery slope. If we allow those people to do "illegal" deeds because we do not want to "look mean and exclusionary," what would be next? As far I as I know, if a person in AZ is stopped by a police officer, that person may be questioned if he / she is here illegally. What harm is there in that? Are they not law breakers? Are we not to uphold the law? That's what police officers are to do isn't it? If the person has done something illegal, then it is illegal. The reason we are in the situation we are in is because we have not upheld the law. I am not against changing it. But I am against changing it and allowing those who are here illegally to be rewarded for their illegal behavior. As an educator, I would not pass a student who plagiarizes because he has a family, is a nice guy/girl, or even loves the Lord. Would you? I think the real question should be, I wonder, what are people afraid of in upholding the law? After all, isn't that what Paul taught? Respectfully, Michael
Darrell L. Bock
Upholding the Law Is Not All There Is To This One
Michael:
Thank you for the reply. I understand the point. The analogy and reply completely misses how we got here and reduces the complexity of the situation we have. Let me illustrate. What if I said to you that you as a teacher in charge of the class, that you can write an independent paper and use resources, then down the road I say no independent means independent, no resources allowed, you plagiarized and I am kicking you out of school. Would that be right? This is how we treated our immigration laws for years (It may be right or the best way to have done it, but we did it). How we got here is relevant, the position it put people is also a factor to consider, and should not be ignored. If there is a sense something is wrong with our laws and let's fix it, then we should do that. Let's do that. So now we will apply a law as we have not done for twenty to forty years plus, split families, and show ourselves to be a nation of laws with no sense of responsibility as to how we contributed to this situation. I prefer really trying to fix the problem (which will not be easy), but do so in ways that keeps us the welcoming nation we have historically been. I think that is a better path.
Michael07
“Starting” to uphold the law is the answer
Thank you for your reply. You stated: "So now we will apply a law as we have not done for twenty to forty years plus, split families, and show ourselves to be a nation of laws with no sense responsibility as of how we contributed to this situation." The way I view it is we have seen that ignoring the laws on immigration has put us in this situation. Now we are saying we have been wrong to do so. Let's begin (and I stress begin) to fix it by letting people know we are going to enforce the law. A example: I live near DC and nobody obeys the speed limit on the beltway! It is 55mph. The police do not care if you go 70mph (average speed I'd say). That is how it has been for years! But let's say there start to be a lot of fatalities. The police start cracking down on speeders on the beltway. When an officer pulls me over for going 67 in a 55 I can hardly cry "unfair" because in the past it hasn't been enforced. We can speak of the split up families and such and believe me, it breaks my heart. But the reason for the law, if you listen to Arizonans, is because of the crime associated with the illegal immigration. While there was no crime, the law seemed to not matter. Now that crime is a problem it is time to enforce the law. Human trafficking is rampant in AZ, a preferred boarder crossing for illegal immigrants. Former AZ Gov. Napolitano signed a bill in 2005 citing this very thing! (just proving the problem!) The drugs allowed to enter via illegal immigrants is staggering. Have you seen what drugs can do to a child and family or a neighborhood. Yes, some families may be split up. That is an unfortunate consequence of parents doing illegal activities. When they figured our government didn't care, were they not "rolling the dice?" But consider the women who are being brought here to be sex slaves and forced into prostitution? Think about the families where drugs get to their kids and whole neighborhoods torn apart. Think about the families that have to live near drug dealers (as I see happening in my 'hood sometimes!) It's terrible! Yes, we created this problem by ignoring the law. But now it is time to enforce it. I do not think that locking up each illegal is going to be the long term solution, nor do I want it to be. But for Arizona, it is a good start to tell people, if you are involved in an illegal activity and we suspect you are here illegally, we will check into it. I prefer fixing the problem but sometimes you have to patch that leak before it gets out of hand. We can be a nation that says we welcome you, legally though!
Darrell L. Bock
On This We Are Agreed
Yes, let's enforce laws that are associated with genuine criminal activity. Those acts should have consequences. Let's figure out a way to fix the situation that does not equate presence with criminal activity. Crime is not the product of immigration; it is done by criminals some of whom have come from outside our borders. (Other criminals are quite American) The kind of crime you describe existed before there was immigration or come with immigration from those wish to kill or exploit. Far more who are here do not engage in such activity and should not be profiled as if they are these kind of criminals. So we are agreed on two things for sure. Let's move to really fix the problem and preserve our values of welcome. Let's enforce the law when destructive activity takes place. Let's distinguish between presence and crime.
McAlpin, Skepticism Examiner
Thank you.
Although I'm not an avid reader of your work, I'm familiar enough with it to admire a serious approach to scholarship and to civil discourse. Evangelical Christianity has become the justification for, and in some cases the instigator of, the most rabid aspects of the so-called "patriot" movement. That's why it's a relief to hear a sane Christian voice from time to time. I'm grateful to hear you speak up on this issue. I just listened to the DTS podcast from November on Evangelicalism in a non-Evangelical world (I like to listen to different points of view while doing yardwork), and in that podcast you referred to "engagement." I think civil disourse in the US would benefit if you and others from the more peer-reviewed(?)Christianity would engage more. If I viewed current American culture as a "war," as a lot of people do, I wouldn't want you speaking up. My views are different from yours, and if we were only in competition, then the actions of Evangelicals in the so-called "patriot" militias, the "parental rights" movement, the "People's Constitution Movement (agitating for treason)", the tea party fiasco, and the anti-immigrant movement are the best argument for putting conservative Christianity to bed permanently. Leavening the churches with your approach would probably re-invigorate the religion. Civilization, however, is built on the concept of cooperation despite differences. I think we're better off with a marketplace of ideas in which all sides make their best arguments in a sane, reasoned way (even when I disagree with yours). What we're seeing from most of Republican Christianity now is a destructive cycle, spiraling toward outright lunacy. The dominant voices representing Christianity these days have joined the conservative competition to be the most extreme and vicious. The more extreme they become, the less seriously they are taken, and the more angry and extreme they become as a result. It isn't in anyone's interest to see twenty or thirty percent of the population jump off a cliff. That's why those of you who haven't been swept up in the emotionalism are needed in the discusion.
Sly
Illegal Immigration
I believe that many people have NOT understood the law that Arizona has passed. It's basically implementing the Law of the Government. If you say that we need to implement the law, yet not separate families, isn't that giving the Illegal a pass? This has been a problem for far too long, and it's only getting worse. Where to start if no one in Government wants to start? Is it fair to those who paid and waited for years to be let in this country from far worst places? I think not. I have compassion, but willfully breaking the law should not be accepted.
Darrell L. Bock
Check the History and An Idea
Some responses on this topic ask us to simply implement the law. What it ignores is how we got here and what was done to encourage illegals to come for a long time. It is a situation we are significantly responsible for creating. Implementing the law avoids our facing the responsibility for what was created. So why not work to set up a better system? I'd ask many to read the book I recommended by M Daniel Carroll that explains how we got here. If the law we had was a good one that had worked that would be one thing. The appeal to illustration on speed limits etc assumes the law we have and how it was applied for a long time was and is sound. That is part of what people are challenging and why some people say we need to fix the real problem by looking at our immigration policy versus tightening the noose of the current law.
Now how about this for a proposal. Let's keep the Arizona law. However instead of deporting the "illegals" we find, let's put them on a legal track to stay here if they wish to be here and if they have a clean record with regard to any crime? Rather than have the law work as a punishment, let's have it work to show people they need not be afraid to come forward if they simply want to live here and be a part of our community. Let's work to welcome those who wish to be here for good reasons.
Michael07
I like it!!!
Dr. Bock, Yes we do agree! In addition, I love your plan. It is balanced and provides a solution. I love the thought of people who just want a better life to be able to come to the land of opportunity. Your plan upholds the law while fixing the problem we (like it or not) in many aspects created by how we dealt with the law previously. I hadn't thought through it that deeply. I also would like to thank you for engaging with me on this topic. You stretched me in my thinking, especially on aspects of thinking through my illustrations, making them parallel on every aspect. Thanks again, Michael
Skepticism Examiner
Good, except for…
…the constitution. As much as I appreciate the tone of your last comment, Dr. Bock, it ignores the fact that the Arizona law violates the constitution. It requires police to harrass people with foreign accents or people who "look" like illegals, which means people who look Central American or Carribean. Off the top of my head, that violates equal protection under the law and unreasonable search and seizure. Yeah, I know. This isn't a law blog. And I wasn't invited any way. I always was slow to take a hint. Still, my guess is you love the Constitution, too.
Darrell L. Bock
Good, except for…
If it violates the Constitution, then the challenges to it will surely succeed. Remember the premise of the original blog is that there is a better way to tackle this issue than this law, which I do see as flawed and not the right way to go.
pete
Great points on all
Great points on all discussed, however I have to agree that just because we have not fully enforced the law that do not me its OK to break it. Just because you got away with breaking the law that does not mean it was forgiven . the Law is the Law and it should be upheld. I too an am immigrant and had to go thought the legal way to enter the country. Why must you turn your head to those who break the law. true it will separate families however the law was broken and it should be upheld.
Darrell L. Bock
Great points on all
The issue is not if the law should be upheld, but how and whether the way the Arizona law does it is best. Among the issues are: is it (1) legal, (2) the best way to go about it, and (3) really deals with a situation most acknowledge needs fixing in other ways.
Chuck
Immigration
Dr. Bock, I appreciate you attempt to bring some perspective to this difficult issue. My grandparents came here from Italy through Ellis Island. The journey across the ocean was perilous with many immigrants dying in route, put overboard at sea. My grandparents quickly entered into the process of acquiring citizenship, including learning English. They worked hard, assimilated, became business owners, and productive Americans while still retaining their ethnic identity and customs. As I see it at least two huge problems face us today. First, decades of failure of our federal government to enforce the immigration laws of our land allowing a fairly unchecked flow of people into this country, mainly from the south. Second, our obscene dependence upon cheap labor and easy access to that labor (from the south). Dr. Bock, Lady Liberty still stands tall for all who will come…according to the law. This is good and right for a society, and not opposed to compassion. Citizenship should mean something, for it is healthy for a society. Allowing the presence of a growing underground class in the US is bad news and should be guarded against. In the case of immigration law presence is a crime. If it is not then our immigration laws mean nothing. One other point I should make as well. In my significant experience with internationals those coming from Asia, Europe, and most other points east and west are meticulous about maintaining legal status and/or becoming citizens asap. The situation on the southern border however is different. There is a significant percentage of these immigrants who honestly do not want to become citizens, unless of course citizenship is simply handed to them (some form of amnesty). They only want to come here, work, and send some back home. My concern is that we will have another amnesty program but not fix our enforcement, as we failed to do in 1986. Will we be in even worse shape 25 years from now? Our track record is poor indeed.
fms
Re:What Are We Afraid Of?
The basic issue here is whether or not a country has the sovereign right to control who we let into this country. The logical conclusion of supporting amnesty is the United States should have an open boarder. If the United States has an open boarder, the whole world would come here. Since that would lead to chaos, we have the right to determine how many people get to come here and who we want to let in. The problem is the government will not enforce our own boarder laws. If the united states policy on drug crime was that the DEA is the only agency that can arrest and charge people for drugs and local law enforcement is cut out of the equation, you have de facto legalized drugs. The city with highest murder and kidnap rate in the world is Mexico city. The city with second highest kidnap and murder rate is Phoenix Arizona. Mexico is becoming a narco state and it is spilling over into the United States. The notion that the criminal element of Illegal immigrants isn't a factor is not true. Illegal immigration is costing Arizona 3 billion dollars a year. Arizona is broke and can't afford the weight of illegal immigration on the economy. The question here is does Arizona have the right to enforce the boarder laws or pass a bill that would be the equivalent? The pro amnesty position has many problems with it. Why do people who broke the law to get into this country get preferential treatment over people who didn't break the law? Person A breaks in and get's citizenship but person B spends quite a bit of money and time on bureaucratic red tape and doesn't get citizenship? Another problem is pro amnesty arguments is they can be disingenuous. Often times instead of have a discussion, they will call you names. If you support enforcing the boarder you are automatically a racists, a bigot, xenophobic, or you hate children and don't care about people. They will bring up Ellis Island and won't differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. They will evade answering any questions about how they propose to secure the boarder. Most of the time this is because they don't want to admit they want an open boarder. We will give 20 million people amnesty and do nothing to secure the boarder. Then 10 years later the problem will be bigger and more costly and they will talk about amnesty without securing the boarder again. They might pay lip service to closing the boarder. The problem with closing the boarder coupled with amnesty is if you announce after date X that the boarder will be closed, there will be a run on the boarder. Then instead of 20 million people you have 40 to 60 million. Dr Bock used the notion of enforcing the criminal laws "that are associated with genuine criminal activity." We already do this. If we put an illegal immigrant in jail, and send him back to their country of origin; what good is that if he can come back into this country without a problem. Local law enforcement officers are complaining about this very issue. A MS-13 gang member commits a crime, is sent to jail, and deported. A police officers recognizes the same gang member again and he can't do anything about it. There is also the tendency to blame us for illegal immigration. We didn't close the boarder, they came in so it's our fault. That is like saying, If there is never a police car on a certain road and I go for years speeding on that road but suddenly I get a ticket; that is the police officers fault. I know I am not supposed to speed, I can't blame a police officer for giving me a ticket. Immigrants know that it is illegally to enter into this country. Then, there is the emotional plea argument that if illegal immigrants have children or families, they should get a free pass. This can be used with any issue. Mr X was just dealing marijuana and he has a family. We should let him go.
Darrell L. Bock
Response to posts
FMS and Chuck:
I am not contending (1) we should not have laws of immigration enforcement or (2) that citizenship should not be pursued. I am noting that what got us into the current situation was our fault to an important degree, so that the Arizona law is ill conceived. Simply sending people home now will do split families (some of whom came year ago under the impression when they did there was not a problem). We need to figure out how we go from here, then build a sensible immigration policy and then work to enforce it. I hope you all saw how I proposed a law like Arizona's should be enforced. Put people who are caught on the road to citizenship. Should they refuse, then enforce the law.