The desire to be among others who exhibit similar characteristics seems to be an intrinsic human desire which culminates in the exclusion of others. Historically humanity has drawn many lines which testify to this need to identify some as “us” and some as “them.” Some have even used religious ideas, such as Manifest Destiny, to promulgate and justify the oppression and subjugation of those considered others. Although many continue to use scripture to exclude and draw distinctions between humanity, hospitality and acceptance of the stranger are virtues that are well documented in the Bible. Somehow it seems that this fact has failed to inform the current immigration debate.
The current immigration debate is not an inconsequential dispute free from social ramifications. Both inclusionist and retrictionist have valid points and concerns regarding the contribution and burden that immigrants have historically placed on American society. We live in a different world than that of the early immigrant who sought the opportunities that an ever expanding American western frontier offered. It seems difficult to argue a restrictionist point of view without exhibiting some sort of racism or prejudice, but I believe it is impossible to argue that immigrants do not tax the American culture with some form of strain to its financial and cultural security. Although this threat and strain is often accentuated by proponents of stricter rules regard immigration, the positive contributions of immigrants are frequently overlooked.
Although scripture relates a God who has mercy on the “alien,” it also denotes a God who ordered the ethnic cleansing of the Promised Land in order to avoid the influence of a divergent people. Can scripture be used to justify hospitality and acceptance of the “alien?” Does mercy supersede adherence to the rule of law? The ministry of Jesus Christ exhibited the intent to redefine or further inform the original meaning of the law. The church continues to struggle with emulating Jesus’ teachings to cross cultural barriers and break with the norms associated with hospitality. The church also continues to struggle with his declaration that he “did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it.”
How we interpret the Bible is intricately dependant on our own experience and social location. Those in power always seem to overlook passages that point to mercy. Those in more precarious social situations tend to look to passages that offer mercy and hope. If scripture is read through the lens of an immigrant experience there is no doubt that faith calls us to welcome the stranger. If we are to hold immigrants accountable to the laws governing our border we must hold ourselves accountable to humanitarian laws and the ethical dilemmas that our economic ventures in Latin America have caused.
Bendiciones,
Joel M. Saucedo