I worked in law enforcement for DPS, on the border, for seven years before going to seminary. I also am a third generation Arizonan and grew up in Yuma. The anarchy of our southern border is indeed a severe threat to those on both sides. My problem is with SB1070, however, is three fold:

1. I can tell you by absolute experience that law enforcement does not have the manpower to enforce these laws as written. With DPS, when I would run across an undocumented immigrant, Border Patrol was often an hour away or more. If local law enforcement now has to arrest and detail every undocumented immigrant, then be prepared to fund many more law enforcement officers.

2. The law and order argument that is often use: “If you entered this county illegally then you have committed a crime and thus you are a criminal,” is hypocritical. The Federal government has looked the other way for years as corporate farms enticed desperate people to enter the country illegally and employ them illegally. It is not by accident that we have some of the cheapest food prices in the world.

Now, after 9-11 and after a crashed economy, we are suddenly worried about law and order and about protecting American jobs. Are we going after those who enticed a desperate population of the poorest among us to enter this county illegally as vigilantly? Are we throwing the “criminal” label at them just as arbitrarily? Go look at the fields in Yuma, go look at our jail population, and the answer is obvious.

And our jails are not disproportionately populated by Hispanics because Hispanics commit more crimes but because they are punished more punitively. I saw it over and over again with my own cases: Kid from rich farming family gets third DUI – charge reduced to a 1st time DUI; poor Hispanic or Native American kid with the same charge – 2 years with the DOC.

Plus, everyone who speeds is technically a criminal; in fact, you have a better chance being killed by a speeder than you do any undocumented immigrant; yet, somehow, this law is not enforced seriously. The fact that all of the speed cameras were taken out of Phoenix even those traffic accident were significantly reduced is a pretty good indication that we are all pretty fickle about violations of certain laws qualifying someone as a criminal and others as not, and that fickle criteria is not based on public safety.

3. The violent criminal element that is violating the border is using undocumented immigrants as camouflage for their illegal activity. The most logical step is not to spend manpower locking up otherwise peaceful people, but to take away the camouflage, to allow otherwise peaceful undocumented people to openly be part of society in an orderly and fair manner so that law enforcement can truly tell the good guys from the bad guys.

Anyway, my 2 cents. God’s peace.

Say you are a Lutheran pastor in Arizona of a Lutheran church with a Lutheran school. What ought to be the official policy of church and school?

I would like to hear from lawyers and law enforcement officers as to what exactly is legal or illegal for a church and church-school, according to current Arizona law.

My hunch is something like this.

1) You may preach the gospel and educate all immigrants and their children.
2) You may incorporate them into the life of your church and school.
3) You may not shelter them from the law enforcement authorities.
4) You may not give them employment at the church or school. (Is this true?)
5) You may help them gain legal citizenship.
6) You may give them food, clothing, and shelter.
7) The church/church-school is not required to investigate the legal status of immigrants or to report illegal immigrants to the state authorities. The church is not expected to carry out the government’s job. You may make good Lutherans of all immigrants, and part of being a good Lutheran is for them to obey the laws of the land as well.
9) You may assist Lutheran churches south of the border to reach out and care for the people in their area so that their men can find paid work to support their families.

In short, my hunch is that there is a whole lot that LCMS churches and schools could legally do in this situation.

A couple more thoughts.

When the Apostle Paul says in Romans 13 to obey the government, not all of the Roman laws at the time were so great. Paul is not saying to obey only the civilly righteous laws of the land.

As citizens in the U.S. Lutherans are free to work for improving the laws of the land.

Nothing in the law says don’t love or give care to the illegal. It simply says that one who is here illegally is to be sent back to his or her country. You may note that during the confinement and transport process, they are fed and given a place to sleep and, generally, are treated with respect.

It would be wonderful for all of those who are offended by this law, which is merely a law that allows AZ law-enforcement officials to enforce a long-standing Federal law, would find out where these people live in Mexico and provide assistance for them there. After all, Mexico IS our neighbor and we who are followers of Christ are told to provide care to the extent we are able.

What is so strange is that Hispanic people who are citizens of this state are every bit as excellent as those of other racial origins – many of whom have lost track of all their mixed ancestry – and one would think that they would be in the forefront of the effort to encourage those here illegally to leave. If I were Irish and closely affiliated with the Irish-American citizens, I would want to find those Irish who were here illegally and get them to leave – because their presence would be casting a very dark shadow on the “name” of Irish-Americans.

But, in this era that celebrates our “rights” rather than duties and self-sacrifice and that encourages the lost to discover that they are victims and to identify and rail against those who are persecuting them, this hubub will not likely end.

So for those of us who follow Christ, it is a time to hold up His light and realize that God is well aware of what is happening. And light does seem to shine more brightly as the darkness gathers.

Blessings to you in Christ,

Mike

You seem to pose two questions. First, how should we treat our neighbor? Second, what role does our vocation plays when deciding how to treat our neighbor? Perhaps an ethical framework for the discussion might apply. For example, Practical Imperatives were developed from Kant’s Categorical Imperatives to counter Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has been accused of justifying exploitation of people already disadvantaged. If a program increases the misery of the disadvantaged but promotes the total social good, then utilitarianism might have to support such a program. The matching Practical Imperative is: always act so as to treat rational nature (i.e., other human beings) as an end, never as a means only.

Our Lutheran Confessions says, “While the Table of Duties must be proclaimed to all Christians, governments and states as such are accountable to God not through the church but through all who have standing under Rom. 13:1-7, and by way of natural reason and law.” (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/WRHC/134_The%20Two%20Realms%20in%20the%20Lutheran%20Confessions.PDF)

Since Governor Brewer signed Arizona’s immigration law into effect, her approval ratings soared implying that most Arizona constituents agree with the law and the Governor’s actions. Arizona demonstrated a basic principle of the US Constitution; that is States are free to self govern, free to create and enforce their own laws. Such freedoms are exactly what so many of our military fought and died to defend.

Thank you for the response – very helpful. You helped me much by clarifying that neighbor language includes even “love for our enemies”! The bar is set mighty high. Thanks be to God for the Cross.

Paz,
eloy

It seems to me that every Christian, in the left-hand realm (and especially in a democracy), has some duty to see to it that the civil laws are just, fair, right, moral, and reasonable in how these laws deal with various sets of neighbors. I have argued that there will be a measure of debate in making such decisions because we come at the question with different vocations and thus vocational priorities. But hopefully the well-being of some neighbor will be foremost in our minds as we debate. So I agree with you that some human face, some neighbor’s face, must be put on the table when discussing illegal immigration. My article wants to say to people out there: Don’t talk to me about “the” civil law. Talk to me about some “neighbor” in light of the civil law.

Part of my argument in the article implies that no decision we take on an issue concerning what the law should be goes without affecting some neighbor, and so we must be sensitive to and responsible for our opinions and passion when it comes to advocating for a particular person or group. There is a sense in which we cannot be completely fair to everyone or make every neighbor satisfied. And yet there is a sense in which we must try our best to do just that, i.e., attend to all neighbors justly, reasonably, and even charitably even if they do not get everything. Comprehensive immigration reform will have to reasonably draw the line somewhere, but it will seek to do so even as it attempts to attend to the well-being of various sets of neighbors who call for various forms of protection and care. Not easy.

Therefore, I agree that “neighbor” language can be and has been used to leave some other “neighbor” aside. This is partly the case, as I said above, because we come at the neighbor through this or that vocation. And so I cannot attempt to fulfill the law “in abstracto” without some neighbor “in concreto.” At the same time, Luther would say that the law of God is also above this or that vocation. This gets to your concern against some ill-conceived exclusivist approach to vocation. Indeed, I cannot leave a suffering neighbor aside in the name of my God-given vocation to serve a specific neighbor. While I must argue for some concrete neighbor, I cannot used that to justify leaving another one to suffer.

The governor of Arizona had to attend to those neighbors she has been called to protect first according to her God-given vocation, but my article suggests that in doing so boldly some other neighbors inevitably have fallen through the cracks. This state of affairs is both understandable as far as vocational priorities and focus go, and yet it is still unacceptable to many precisely because some neighbors have been left out. A less than perfect world. Vocation can be practiced in such a way that some are excluded, but the law of God calls us to serve every single neighbor–even our enemies. What a high call! It’s scary God demands so much of us! On the one hand, we must rejoice in our vocations and attend to those neighbors we have been called to serve primarily. On the other hand, we must have the needs of all our neighbors in mind when the opportunity to serve them comes up. We must be ready to do so, and so we cannot use vocation conveniently as an excuse not to do so.

There is an argument to be made for serving the neediest and most vulnerable neighbors in our midst as we make decisions about which “neighbor” to serve first. And there is no doubt that immigrants are among the most vulnerable and poor neighbors in our midst. The argument for the priority of love towards the neediest has to be seriously considered. And yet I am sure that some will want to argue that other neighbors who are not poor immigrants are also vulnerable and among the neediest when it comes to certain protections that the law must seek to provide for them. In those cases, arguing from some particular vocation and advocating for some particular “neediest” neighbor or set of neighbors must also be done.

My intention is not to make the neighbor into a convenient category for self-justification. My sincere hope is that we will be able to take concrete neighbors–not exclusively but especially the most needy–seriously in our discussions about the civil law.

I must admit that when dealing with the issue of the undocumented alien in our midst, the “neighbor language” – that is, beginning our theological consideration of the issue by speaking to the question of ‘what neighbor am I serving’ – it leaves me a tad bit uneasy. Please allow me to explain.

It seems to me that when one couches certain classes of issues in “neighbor language,” it needs to be issues where the scriptures are unclear or where the scriptures haven’t spoken to the matter. In such cases – the second table – i.e. “neighbor language” – provides solid guidance.

But where the Scriptures speak clearly – we often don’t resort to the “neighbor language” to make the case. For example, when dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage, we don’t use “neighbor language”. We make the argument against same-sex marriage by relying on the scriptures that speak clearly to the Word that says: ‘male and female’ He created them. The same is true for the pro-life argument that militates against the practice of abortion. There are many other issues of this nature – including some very well established (doctrinal) practices in the Church that don’t rely on “neighbor language” to make the case.

But as the argument is framed for the undocumented alien, “neighbor language” is used. The problem that I see with this is that “neighbor language” seems to be useful only for justifying a position, decision or action taken. This type of theological approach can be used equally by those who vehemently argue for arresting and deporting the undocumented worker, as well as by those who favor mercy and consideration for these people. In both cases, by using “neighbor language” to frame the argument, we receive no clarity from scripture apart from feeling good about what position that we hold. It isn’t sophistry – but certainly this makes it possible frame the theological argument in such a way as to come to diametrically opposite views.

I favor mercy for the alien in our midst because I believe that the scriptures argue this case. This isn’t “neighbor language” as I’ve described above. In fact, I believe that “neighbor language” mitigates a compassionate response to the alien in our midst. I believe that if we can argue against laws that are not just in the case of abortion, same-sex marriage – to name two high profile issues – we can argue against laws that dehumanize people.

The following words are quoted from the position paper jointly promulgated from both the LCMS President’s Office and the Executive Director of Human Care and World Relief:

“Millions of undocumented persons have come to the United States for many and various reasons. They have come to flee oppression of many sorts, including extreme poverty and hunger. They have come in order to make provision for their loved ones. They have come in order to end separation from loved ones. They have come illegally because they have deemed that the legal route is nearly impossible to maneuver. They have come because they can work, and they find dignity in labor. We recognize also that a small percentage have come for malevolent reasons.

Christians equally committed to God’s Word may reasonably arrive at different conclusions on specific aspects of these issues and their resolution. However, this much is certain: God, in His Word, consistently shows His loving concern for “the stranger in our midst” and directs His people to do the same. The Children of Israel were told, “He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:18-19).”

I believe these words more clearly compel us to make a just, scripturally-based choice: Pursue relentlessly those who enter for malevolent reasons – but also make the case for mercy to the “stranger in our midst” who is here for more humane reasons.

It makes me feel uneasy to take a stand against the position espoused by our government. But I do exactly this in the case of abortion and same-sex marriage laws because I believe that they are unjust and go contrary to “thus saith the Lord”. We are compelled to obey God rather than man.

Can the case be made for mercy toward the undocumented alien in the same way? Are the laws just? If so – I believe that “neighbor language” allows an easy out for those wanting to simply say that in this case the laws of the land are just. Can the case for mercy be made on a “thus saith the Lord basis?”

Thank you for considering these comments and this question.

At the same time, how can we be good neighbors and share the Gospel with the people who are criminals? i.e. the drug runners, etc. Don’t they have as much a right to hear the Gospel, maybe even need to hear it more than the upstanding citizens?

Thank you, brother, for the article and for the stimulating conversation that has evolved as a result of same.

Life is interesting. Our relationship with our neighbors to the south has taken several interesting turns. During the great depression, Mexican Americans were kicked out of the United States. One presumes that the hard times here suddenly made these people less desirable.

Then World War II ensued. With our men engaged in two military theaters of operation – suddenly the United States experienced a shortage of laborers. Through both diplomatic efforts and legislation a legal guest worker program, what was then called the Brazero Program, permitted workers from Mexico to legally come to work in the United States for agricultural and railroad jobs.

I was raised along the U.S. – Mexico border (1950’s and early 1960’s). I remember my father, who had a taxicab business, make countless trips between the port of entry at the U.S. – Mexico border to the various agribusiness sites in South Texas. Workers moved between Mexico and the U.S. rather liberally. The relationship between the legal guest workers and the agribusinesses on the U.S. side was symbiotic. Both economies benefitted from the agreement and relationship.

When the Brazero Program was eliminated (early 1960’s) I remember that my dad lost his business – not an isolated problem for the people who lived along the Frontera during those years. More than that, efforts to plug the porous borders that permitted free-flow of people and commerce for – literally decades (and in reality, centuries) began to materialize. From that point forward, the situation was continually exacerbated by the demand for economical labor on the U.S. side and the need for gainful employment for the relatively young population of Mexico where there was less opportunity for both skilled and unskilled laborers. The elimination of a legal mechanism to permit what was the defacto way of life is a significant contributor to the dilemma of illegal immigration that afflicts both countries.

That’s history. I’m not advocating ‘illegal immigration’. Who would? The world has changed. There are people in the world who want to do serious harm to the people of the United States. There are drug cartels waging war on the people who live along the Frontera communities – mostly in Mexico, but it bleeds over to the U.S. So what to do?

First – I think that we must recognize that God established government to maintain good order. The sword is given to government to both deter evil and to punish the evildoer. But how should we exercise that sword with justice – - in a way that truly cares for the neighbor?

Second – Perhaps we are ready for another legalized guest worker program. We cannot deny that there is a huge demand for this. Just look at who cooks in restaurants, who cleans the rooms in the hotels, who harvests the crops that we eat.

If we – as happened when there was a need during WWII and before – make for a legal way for those looking for gainful employment to enter the country, then the borders can more easily be protected. We know that if those who are properly coming into the country to work are coming through the “front door” – then those trying to come illegally across the border can be pursued relentlessly.

Third – I think that we as a church – and as a country – need to recognize that we have sinned against the neighbor. We can point an accusing finger to the undocumented worker all day long. But, as we do so, we also need to recognize that we have, historically, tried to have our cake and eat it too. We demand cheap affordable food and a plentiful supply of construction workers, service workers and agricultural workers. We have used our neighbors to meet these needs. By inviting and disinviting workers from Mexico based purely on our own agenda without considering the affect of the ‘on again’ – ‘off again’ policy on real people – I believe that we share in the responsibility for creating this situation.

Finally, we tend to look at the immigration dilemma as nameless, faceless masses who are less than people. We are wrong. In the 1980s when the “AIDS scare” was at its zenith – it was easy to accuse the gay person – that is until “AIDS had a face.” I’ve lost a friend to AIDS. This changes the dynamics radically.

The same is also true for the undocumented alien. These are real people. The situations among them vary so much as to defy broad brush-strokes thinking. For example: I know of people who were brought over from Mexico many years ago as babies or very young children. They have grown up here; educated here; they have more affinity to this country than to Mexico. I know of couples made up of two undocumented parents who have had children here who are American citizens. Yet – under current law – parents can be, and have been deported – and separated from the American born children. Justice? I have a parishioner who was brought over as a small boy from a South American country. He went to school here – graduated here. Lived here. You could not distinguish him from most other young twenty-something men. But during a traffic stop, it was determined that he was undocumented, turned over to the immigration authorities and deported to a country he does not know. Justice? When we can put a face to the undocumented alien – the dynamics change radically.