The plight of the illegal immigrant is usually included in the call for ‘social justice.’ The rhetoric surrounding the debate, however, is often misleading. The dropping of the term “illegal” by advocates makes it sound as if all who oppose illegal entry oppose all immigrants. This is unfortunate, for it only serves to cloud the issue rather than clarify. The same could be said of language coming out of the Christian community. When stipulations from the Mosaic law regarding treatment of the “sojourner” are offered, or Jesus’ Judgment Day expectation of care for the “stranger” is cited, important contextual considerations that deny a universal application of the obligation are overlooked. That being said, a pertinent and, frankly, more demanding text, is applicable: the parable of the “Good Samaritan.” In it, to use the words of R.C. Sproul, the obligation of the “universal neighborhood of man” requires that “I love each human being as much as I love myself.”
There is a “macro” view and a “micro” view of the issues involved. The macro is concerned with an unregulated influx of people. Without vigilance, it proves difficult to keep track of how many there are, who they are, where they have come from, and where they are once they arrive. This is not an insignificant concern. Personally, I think the threat of rapists and murderers flooding the country is more rhetoric than reality, nor is the possibility of jihadists slipping in undetected a major concern, but the sheer number of people that desire the prosperity and freedom we enjoy could easily overwhelm the country’s capacity to accommodate them, actually undermining the very institutions that allow for prosperity and freedom. The civil government is tasked with maintaining a just and stable society and this involves establishing and maintaining laws. To think otherwise is folly. R.C. Sproul is right to affirm the universal neighborhood of man; but he would be the first to deny the universal goodness of man. Hence, the need for appropriate regulation.
That being said, the micro view understands that the vast majority of people desiring to enter our country are fleeing very difficult circumstances. Economic stagnation, authoritarian or failed governments, and unchecked violence are all contributing factors that make people feel as though they have no other option but to pack up what they can and leave. There is often great expense and risk involved in the undertaking, which suggests that the decision to depart is not made lightly. When the illegal immigrant ends up at our doorstep, literally or figuratively, having suffered from his trek, Jesus’ parable teaches that our first obligation is to care for them as neighbors. The inclusion of a priest and levite avoiding a man who appears to be dead, contact with whom would have rendered them ritually unfit to perform their duties, illustrates what Jesus approves elsewhere, “to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mark 12:33). This, perhaps, should temper our zeal for strict adherence to law.
There is the need for social stability that is provided by laws that govern immigration, and there are the needs of people, many of whom are escaping undesirable circumstances. These are both weighty considerations that demand wisdom more than easy answers. For the Christian this is particularly true. Understanding the need to love others as we would be loved, we must resist the dehumanizing demagoguery that too often characterizes the debate and seek to respectfully honor our government and compassionately love our neighbor.
