Romans 13
In the heated debate over immigration and immigration reform these days, we read a lot of talk about illegality and, among Christians, Romans 13. Romans 13 seems to say that breaking the civil law of a secular government translates to sin before the Lord because He has established the governments who enact and enforce the civil law. Thus, Christians, especially Christians in a constitutional democracy which venerates the Rule of Law, can comfortably claim some righteousness for not breaking the law. This position also permits convenient rhetoric against those who would dare commit a crime by entering this country by means other than those authorized by the government.
These folks would condemn Jean Valjean to prison for decades because he stole a loaf of bread to feed his hungry family under a corrupt royalist regime. The common reading of Romans 13 quickly runs against tenets of compassion and mercy in any such hypothetical scenario, where a poor person would break the law of the land to feed her hungry family. Only the rich condemn their efforts, and Jesus said much more about the state of rich souls.
For one, I do not feel myself bound by the law of the Republic of Mexico. When in Rome, however, I must submit to Italian law if I am to remain free and unhindered. In Bejing, my friends might just be arrested for smuggling in Bibles and teaching the gospel under the guise of teaching English.
Crime begets crime for the undocumented migrant worker in the U.S. Although Romans 13 may not bind US immigration law on a Mexican standing south of the river, he apparently is bound to those laws as soon as he swims north. First, he breaks the law by entering illegally. Then, he will break the law by driving without a license because he can’t get a Social Security number, then by driving without insurance because he can’t get a drivers license, then working for cash because he can’t get a Social Security number. This is the nature of most crimes committed by the illegal alien, and it seems starkly different than that the crimes committed by illegal CEO’s or illegal terrorists or illegal rapists or illegal drug runners.
Against these heinous acts, we face another factor. They are here, and they are coming. Unless or until the USA is poorer, less stable and weaker than its neighbors, they will come. Across the span of human history, we see this law at work: when poor people become aware of greener pastures where they may relieve the privation of their lives and their children’s lives, they will go. Let’s call it Manifest Destiny. We do not see folks flocking through the Canadian woods into North Dakota, because Canadians have it just fine. How many of the people from New Orleans’s Ninth Ward are returning when Katrina gave them hope of starting over? Not many.
Thus, I share two proposals:
First, once they get here, let them not run for their lives and drive without insurance. Let’s grant some asylum to those who seek refuge from poverty. Yes, let’s reward them for breaking the law. We should force them to register with the INS, to receive an identification number, to be given a conditional Social Security Number and a conditional Drivers’ Licenses. In return, they will agree to make minimum wages and report them to the IRS, to obey the law, to get insurance, to pay taxes. If they don’t, let us impose a zero-tolerance penalty of deportation. If they prove themselves worthy, let’s make them citizens in ten years, then really start to tax them. Assuming that they are coming anyway (and they will), we will eliminate the motive for their crime and instill provocation to productivity.
Alternatively, let us remove the circumstances that drive them to our doors. If poverty, instability, injustice, corruption and hunger drive them to us from South and Central America and Mexico, then we need to get busy making South and Central America and Mexico less impoverished, more stable, more just, less corrupt and well fed. (Oh, but we would bemoan that much foreign aid while our own kids are left behind.) They are here, and they are coming because of the aforementioned Manifest Destiny. That is, unless they have less from which to run north. How much effort, how much diplomacy, how great the incentives, how expensive the investment to build richer societies in Guatemala, Nicaragua or Mexico? Would it be more expensive than big fences? Would it be more expensive than Homeland Security? Would be more expensive than uninsured motorist coverage? Would it be more expensive than educating the children of parents who pay no taxes? Would it be more expensive than public health care for the illegals who cannot pay and who are not eligible for Medicaid?
Would it be more expensive than driving a car that gets 17 miles per gallon? Would it more expensive than a corporate campus with lawns like Augusta greens? Would it be more expensive than poultry by the pound produced by American union workers?
Would it be more expensive than a cool cup of water or an extra mile?
Romans 13 says that we should not break the law, because the Lord has established the state. Here in our America, the Constitution says that We, the People, are the State. We have no government but that which we constitute ourselves. If the Lord would judge the sin of a migrant worker who enters illegally, what might He have to say to the rich Christians who enact and enforce such a law?
These folks would condemn Jean Valjean to prison for decades because he stole a loaf of bread to feed his hungry family under a corrupt royalist regime. The common reading of Romans 13 quickly runs against tenets of compassion and mercy in any such hypothetical scenario, where a poor person would break the law of the land to feed her hungry family. Only the rich condemn their efforts, and Jesus said much more about the state of rich souls.
For one, I do not feel myself bound by the law of the Republic of Mexico. When in Rome, however, I must submit to Italian law if I am to remain free and unhindered. In Bejing, my friends might just be arrested for smuggling in Bibles and teaching the gospel under the guise of teaching English.
Crime begets crime for the undocumented migrant worker in the U.S. Although Romans 13 may not bind US immigration law on a Mexican standing south of the river, he apparently is bound to those laws as soon as he swims north. First, he breaks the law by entering illegally. Then, he will break the law by driving without a license because he can’t get a Social Security number, then by driving without insurance because he can’t get a drivers license, then working for cash because he can’t get a Social Security number. This is the nature of most crimes committed by the illegal alien, and it seems starkly different than that the crimes committed by illegal CEO’s or illegal terrorists or illegal rapists or illegal drug runners.
Against these heinous acts, we face another factor. They are here, and they are coming. Unless or until the USA is poorer, less stable and weaker than its neighbors, they will come. Across the span of human history, we see this law at work: when poor people become aware of greener pastures where they may relieve the privation of their lives and their children’s lives, they will go. Let’s call it Manifest Destiny. We do not see folks flocking through the Canadian woods into North Dakota, because Canadians have it just fine. How many of the people from New Orleans’s Ninth Ward are returning when Katrina gave them hope of starting over? Not many.
Thus, I share two proposals:
First, once they get here, let them not run for their lives and drive without insurance. Let’s grant some asylum to those who seek refuge from poverty. Yes, let’s reward them for breaking the law. We should force them to register with the INS, to receive an identification number, to be given a conditional Social Security Number and a conditional Drivers’ Licenses. In return, they will agree to make minimum wages and report them to the IRS, to obey the law, to get insurance, to pay taxes. If they don’t, let us impose a zero-tolerance penalty of deportation. If they prove themselves worthy, let’s make them citizens in ten years, then really start to tax them. Assuming that they are coming anyway (and they will), we will eliminate the motive for their crime and instill provocation to productivity.
Alternatively, let us remove the circumstances that drive them to our doors. If poverty, instability, injustice, corruption and hunger drive them to us from South and Central America and Mexico, then we need to get busy making South and Central America and Mexico less impoverished, more stable, more just, less corrupt and well fed. (Oh, but we would bemoan that much foreign aid while our own kids are left behind.) They are here, and they are coming because of the aforementioned Manifest Destiny. That is, unless they have less from which to run north. How much effort, how much diplomacy, how great the incentives, how expensive the investment to build richer societies in Guatemala, Nicaragua or Mexico? Would it be more expensive than big fences? Would it be more expensive than Homeland Security? Would be more expensive than uninsured motorist coverage? Would it be more expensive than educating the children of parents who pay no taxes? Would it be more expensive than public health care for the illegals who cannot pay and who are not eligible for Medicaid?
Would it be more expensive than driving a car that gets 17 miles per gallon? Would it more expensive than a corporate campus with lawns like Augusta greens? Would it be more expensive than poultry by the pound produced by American union workers?
Would it be more expensive than a cool cup of water or an extra mile?
Romans 13 says that we should not break the law, because the Lord has established the state. Here in our America, the Constitution says that We, the People, are the State. We have no government but that which we constitute ourselves. If the Lord would judge the sin of a migrant worker who enters illegally, what might He have to say to the rich Christians who enact and enforce such a law?
posted by JRB at 1:09 PM
18 Comments:
I totally agree with Jeff on this issue. We need to legalize these folks. Many of them have undertaken heroic measures to be here. They vehemence by which they are opposed astonishes me. These folks didn't cross the border in order to become fat and lazy on the American welfare system. They come here to work and work hard. For a country that admires the work ethic as much as America does these folks should be idolized rather than demonized. They aren't coming here to steal our union jobs or rob our houses. They come to work in low paying hard labor jobs because even that is better than where they came from.
I will take issue with some of the recent sentiment expressed on behalf of the immigrants (and echoed by Radec's quote above). In my mind the plight of the illegal immigrant in America should not be compared with the plight of the African Americans in the south during first half of last century. Blacks in the south were oppressed for reasons that were 100% beyond their control. They couldn't vote because they were black. They couldn't eat at the same lunch counter as whites because of the color of our skin. On the other hand illegal immigrants today are putting themselves into a situation where they are oppressed. The oppression could be avoided. The Jim Crowe laws of the south were immoral and unust on their face. I do not think the same can be said about our current immigration laws. While I firmly believe we need drastic new immigration policy I can't say that our current immigration policy is immoral.
Hermit J -
You left your comment the first time under my more contemplative post below, "Deliberate Calm."
I'm trying to discern if there's anything spiritual to explicate from that.....
Don't struggle to hard to discern the difference between physical and spiritual implications of this discussion. The two go hand in hand. We can't simply remove the spiritual from the physical. If we do, we have learned nothing from the Incarnation. In fact, this very dichotomy is what has emptied pop Evangelical theology of its social concern. We develop the spirit to discovery more perfectly how to live according to the vocation of God in the creation.
So, yes, there are great spiritual implications to the discussion of how to address the current debacle regarding immigrants. Consider the Pentateuch: when you enter the Land and are living in houses that you didn't build and reaping from fields you didn't plant, don't forget that it was Yahweh who brought you up out of the land of Egypt and delivered you here.
Do we remember that we are all immigrants in this land? (Note: I do NOT think the USA is God's choses nation. The connection is simply about our lack of memory. Alright, I digress...)
Eric, you don't think the USA is God's chosen nation?!?!?!?!
Did I write that? Surely that was a simple oversight. I probably meant to insert Iraq or North Korea or the CCCP, not the USA. Sorry, that was my bad. Sometimes I can't control these crazy fingers when they get on the keys.
Thus, Christians, especially Christians in a constitutional democracy which venerates the Rule of Law, can comfortably claim some righteousness for not breaking the law. This position also permits convenient rhetoric against those who would dare commit a crime by entering this country by means other than those authorized by the government.
These folks would condemn Jean Valjean to prison for decades because he stole a loaf of bread to feed his hungry family under a corrupt royalist regime
That's a very mean statement. You don't believe that your average Christian is more forgiving than a totalitarian government? I'm saddened by this line of reasoning.
Cuz,
Thanks for the comment and the accountability. If you haven't yet, please read the dialogue at Kendall-Ball's site to which I linked. There, you will see plenty of folks extoling the very line of reasoning that I criticize; that is, they would prosecute these people who seek provisions for their families because they broke the law by getting here illegally. For a nation of laws drivien by the people, I think that's a lousy state of affairs.
I appreciate the criticism of the rhetoric, but what do you think about the policy ideas?
While the rhetoric may seem harsh, I think it is more direct and prophetic than mean. (Though prophetic speech typically seems "mean" to those on the receiving end.) I do not think that JRB's language is an unjst charicature, but an accurate depiction of the Javertian concern for the Rule of Law over and against the concern for humanity. The ultimate irony is that very folks that decry abortion in an effort to defend and preserve the sanctity of life, are all too often the same people who condemn the innocent sufferers to death in order to defend the Rule of Law over the sanctity of "the alien, the stranger in your midst."
Of course, this is a mean and harsh characterization as well, but then, I sometimes lose my ability to be tactful and unbiased (as if there were such a thing).
But, Phil, let me respond to your question. No, I don't think the "average Christian" is less graceful than the dead kings of France were. I do think, however, that people, including Christians, have a tendency to forget their own grace when dealing with policy that affects nameless, faceless masses.
I hope and pray that most Christians would be compassionate when presented with impoverished individuals in need. The problems arise when we attempt to translate that into global relationships with others, or those who appear to be "other."
First of all I don't actually think that Racism against a hispanic is any different than Racism against an African American. What I am saying is that our immigration policy is not inherently racist whereas the Jim Crowe laws were. I am strictly speaking about the laws on the books not the people protesting illegal immigration on the street corners. There is a virulent racism against hispanics in this country but I do not think it is codified in our immigration laws.
By the way Radec my Bible does include Matthew chapter 5. It also includes Matthew chapter 30 wherein God tells me personally that I am always right and you are always wrong. It's an interesting read. He even refers to you as Radec rather Jon.
The pericope of beatitudes often refered to as the "Sweet Sixteen" in scholarly circles are found in the Gospel of Magnus, a deutero-canonical gospel that can be found just after Additions to Matthew: Revenge of the Immigrant Galilean Messiah. It is in AtM that you will find the aforementioned Matthew 30, complete with its references to Radec. They are a good read, but I am not sure I would suggest reading them before the Lord's Supper on a Sunday morning.
Having been certified to read Kile's mind in 1996, let me give it whack.
Kile is saying that our immigration policy does not have racist intent as it is written but that it may have racist effect. Radec is concentrating on effect. Kile is concentrating on intent, as the Jim Crow laws certainly were written with the intent to discriminate.
"IRISH NEED NOT APPLY!"
(AtM 31:66)
Jeff has of course read my mind but I will still toss out of few more tidbits.
Jon, you sort of make my point for me. The same law that made the several million hispanic immigrants illegal also makes the 50,000 or so Irish immigrants illegal. The law in and of itself is color blind and not racist.
Also remember that Tom Tancredo's whacko ideas are not the current law of the land and hopefully they never will be. If you asked him if we needed immigration reform I guarantee he would say yes, absolutley. You and I would of course answer in the same way. But Tom and our desires would pull our immigration policy in different directions. I think most people would agree that while the current immigration regulations are complicated and seem to disuade legal immigration the enforcement of those same laws is pretty lax.
Apologies for the tardiness in replying. I've long said that I don't mind the immigrants coming in, so long as they do so legally (and preferably having learned at least a little English).
Your proposal is sound; I just hope that should something like that gets enacted that it would be enforced. America should welcome immigrants; those immigrants, I believe, have the responsibility to do the right thing. And if not, then we have to have the fortitude to back up our policy. In order to enjoy the club benefits, you have to be a member.
So let's register some new members, shall we?
Annoying Rhetoric :
"We all came from immigrants"
"We are a nation of immigrants"
No one is against immigration. You want to alter the debate by changing the words.
Illegal immigration and immigration are 2 different things.
Blake,
I'm curious if you actually read the post and the comments before you wrote. No one here used the "annoying rhetoric" you describe.
You're right, though. I'm trying to alter the debate. The current debate and demonstrations are not coincidental, they spring from new conservative, draconian (in my opinion) policy suggestions in D.C. I'm not just griping; I'm proposing. What do you think about the proposals?
Throughout the debate, I have seen people, like you, mostly criticizing the "illegals," always under the guise of being pro-immigration. I think that you're missing the point of the conversation and definitely of this post.
The moral, ethical burden lies with the rich in power, not the desperate poor. We have a problem with illegal immigration, but the problem does not lie with entering illegally. It springs from the illegality required to stay here and earn a living. You who say that you oppose illegal immigration, not immigration in general, are ignoring the reality of the issue and the lives of the people involved.
I do not advocate breaking the law. I advocate changing it. Immediately. Do you have criticism of the ideas I propose?
I really liked what the Prez had to say tonight about immigration. He really said a lot of things with which I agreed. Did any of y'all catch it?
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson
The problem we have in America today is our elected official have no respect for the rule of law, nor do they follow the law.
The Constitution is King in America.
In America we have the right to rebel against unlawful government (tyranny/tyrants).
Post a Comment
<< Home