(More Bible Studies Available @ www.marktabata.com)
It is written:
Leviticus 19:33-34-And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. 34 The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Throughout the Word of God, the Lord’s people are exhorted in numerous ways about how to treat foreigners (people from other countries living in their land). The subject of immigration and illegal immigrants has become a very serious issue in our country during the last several years. There are many “tough questions” that we as Christians need to be willing to address. In this article, we are going to notice some of the issues and passages of Scripture which direct and guide us in these matters.
Throughout the Old Testament, there are several terms that are used to refer to foreigners in the land of Israel. Copan tells us:
“Foreigners (nokrim or sometimes bene-nekar [literally, “sons of a foreign land”]) were in a different category. Perhaps they came into Israel as prisoners of war, or they came voluntarily to engage in business transactions. They didn’t embrace Yahweh worship and remained uncircumcised. 13 The foreigner didn’t show concern for Israel’s purity laws, and he was allowed to eat nonkosher foods. He likely didn’t have a problem eating a dead animal not killed by a human. What’s remarkable in Israel’s legislation is the accommodation to the foreigner: if an Israelite saw an animal that had died by itself, he couldn’t eat it (it would make him unclean), but he could give it to an alien (ger) or sell it to a foreigner (nokri) living in his town (Deut. 14: 21). This was a way to show love to the alien and foreigner alike, even if the foreigner didn’t embrace Israel’s purity laws and didn’t identify as fully as possible with God’s people. 14 Further, we’ve already noted that in a postwar situation (Deut. 21: 10–14), a foreign woman could follow certain requirements to separate from her former culture and embrace her new one. After this, she could be elevated to the status of Israelite wife, a far cry from acquiring chattel. Just because an outsider to Israel came to live in the land didn’t mean he would necessarily become a household servant. The stranger (ger) or sojourner (toshab)—often used synonymously—could become a person of means (e.g., Lev. 25: 47). The foreigner (nokri)—the word typically, though not always, has a negative connotation—often came to Israel for business transactions: “foreigners were normally present in a country for purposes of trade,” which meant that “goods or money given to them on credit were usually investments or advance payments on goods, not loans because of poverty.” 15 We should factor all of the above into our discussion of foreigners before looking at the downside of foreigners as servants. There’s more to the word foreigner than first meets the eye. In the Old Testament, the term is associated with someone who is dangerous or hostile to what is good and to God’s purposes for Israel. The foreigner is frequently associated with idolatry (cf. Josh. 24: 20; Jer. 5: 19; Mal. 2: 11), hostility (Neh. 9: 2; 13: 30), 16 or the enemy (2 Sam. 22: 45–46). Solomon married foreign wives who led him into idolatry (1 Kings 11: 1; cf. Ezra 10: 2). Proverbs warns against the strange or foreign woman, who is an adulteress (Prov. 2: 16; 5: 20; 7: 5; 23: 27, etc.). Because of difficulty of integrating into Israel, foreigners may have served as forced laborers (mas) who worked for the state (cf. Deut. 20: 11). They performed public works such as construction and undertook agricultural work as well. Under kings David and Solomon, Ammonites and Canaanites engaged in such work (2 Sam. 12: 31; 1 Kings 9: 15, 20–22; cf. Judg. 1: 28–35). We don’t know if they served part-time or permanently. 17 Overall, the alien or stranger/ temporary resident in Israel wasn’t to be oppressed but was to be dealt with fairly (e.g., Exod. 22: 21). Repeatedly in the law of Moses, God showed concern that outsiders/ foreigners be treated well.” (Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God, 141-143 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books)
Foreigners in the Old Testament were to be treated with kindness and respect, even if the foreigners were not followers of Yahweh. This is an important point to consider: every person was to be treated with kindness and respect. Copan shows us how this was markedly different from other nations of that day and age:
“A theme that pervades the Mosaic law is concern for the alien. This humanitarian feature was reinforced by the reminder—thirty-six times—that the Israelites were once aliens in Egypt. As noted, Israel’s own story was to have a morally shaping effect in their relationships with outsiders. By contrast, there appears to be “relatively little concern for resident aliens in ancient Near Eastern laws”; while occasional or sporadic protections or provisions are given to foreigners, these texts “do not mention resident aliens.” 2 Within Israel, however, even a “resident alien could become prosperous, even more so than an Israelite (Lev. 25: 47).”” (Paul Copan, Is God a Vindictive Bully?: Reconciling Portrayals of God in the Old and New Testaments, 65 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic)
Here are some of the passages from the Old Testament which relate specifically to how the Hebrews were to treat immigrants.
Leviticus 19:33-34-And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. 34 The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 25:47-Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger’s family,
Deuteronomy 10:18-19-He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 27:19-Cursed is the one who perverts the justice due the stranger, the fatherless, and widow.’ “And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
Psalm 146:9-The LORD watches over the strangers; He relieves the fatherless and widow; But the way of the wicked He turns upside down.
Jeremiah 7:5-7-For if you thoroughly amend your ways and your doings, if you thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbor, 6 if you do not oppress the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, or walk after other gods to your hurt, 7 then I will cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.
Ezekiel 47:22-It shall be that you will divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the strangers who dwell among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.
Zechariah 7:9-10-Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘Execute true justice, Show mercy and compassion Everyone to his brother. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, The alien or the poor. Let none of you plan evil in his heart Against his brother.’
Speaking of the fact that the Old Testament emphasizes treating foreigners with dignity because they are made in God’s image, Prager tells us:
“Several modern commentators offer thoughts on the juxtaposition of this verse about the stranger with the previous three verses prohibiting sorcery, bestiality, and bringing sacrifices to false gods. 1. Nahum Sarna comments that the arrangement of these laws highlights the stark moral contrast between polytheism and monotheism: Whereas polytheism is about sorcery, bestiality, and the worship of other gods, Torah monotheism is about protecting those who cannot protect themselves. 2. Benno Jacob makes the point that the Torah prohibits oppressing the non-Jew who resides among Jews immediately following the three verses about idolatrous practices in order to teach that the non-Israelite has to abandon those practices in order to be worthy of equal treatment in Israelite society. 3. Umberto Cassuto maintains the Torah’s injunction to protect the stranger immediately follows the laws about pagan abominations to indicate the Torah’s opposition is not to foreigners themselves, but to particular practices in which they engage. The idea that we have moral obligations to those who are not part of our ethnic, religious, racial, or national group was another revolutionary innovation of the Torah. On this subject, it is worth repeating something the German-Jewish philosopher Hermann Cohen wrote (and quoted in the commentary on Genesis 12: 12): “The stranger was to be protected, although he was not a member of one’s family, clan, religion, community, or people, simply because he was a human being. In the stranger, therefore, man discovered the idea of humanity.”” (Dennis Prager, The Rational Bible: Exodus, 323-324 (Kindle Edition): Washington, DC: Regnery, Faith)
The fact that the Old Testament shows such concern for people of all nations should come as no surprise. After all, we are told that God’s plan for mankind encompasses all nations. His dealings with Israel were to prayers the nations for His program in the world, especially in the bringing forth of the Messiah.
“5. The solemn and unique calling of Israel to be God’s witness and God’s priesthood as instituted under Moses and developed by the prophets. Little needs to be said on this subject. In no uncertain terms had God commanded Israel to be His royal priesthood (Ex 1-9:5-6), to be His servant and His witness (Is 40-53) and to show forth His praises among the nations (Is 43:21). Later Christ speaks of His people as the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt 5:13-15). Israel was a peculiar, singular people with a glorious calling and mission (Deu 7:6; 14:2; 26:18-19)…Her relation to the nations. Israel is to be a kingdom of priests, again variously translated as a “royal priesthood” (Septuagint), “a priestly kingdom” (Vulgate), “kingdom of priests” (Peshitto), and “kings and priests” (Targum). Again, whatever translation we may prefer, the fact is clear that Israel is God’s priest and is to perform a priestly ministry in the world. She is to be God’s mediator. No priest exists unto himself; he has value and meaning only as a mediator….It is a profound fact that “the hymn of praise is missionary preaching par excellence,” especially when we realize that such missionary preaching is supported in the Psalms by more than 175 references of a universalistic note relating to the nations of the world. Many of them bring hope of salvation to the nations. This was a most astounding discovery for me some years ago. The believer will be greatly enriched in his missionary thinking by reading through the Psalms and underlining all references relating to the nations of the earth. Indeed, the Psalter is one of the greatest missionary books in the world, though seldom seen from that point of view. Not only are the Psalms permeated with references of universal connotation, but whole psalms are missionary messages and challenges. Study carefully Psalm 2, 33, 66, 72, 98, 117, 145. The impact of such hymnody must have been profound upon a spiritually minded people.” (George W. Peters, A Biblical Theology Of Missions, 1246-1335 (Kindle Edition): Chicago: Moody Press)
Even the great encounter of the Exodus (in which God delivered the people of Israel from Egypt) was an example of the Lord’s mercy to a foreign nation who had long been deceived by false gods.
“The whole purpose of God was to bless one people so that they might be the channel through which all the nations of the earth might receive a blessing. Israel was to be God’s missionary to the world—and thereby so were all who believed in this same gospel….The events of the exodus from Egypt were remarkable in that they repeatedly focused on the fact that everything that was happening to the Egyptians and to Pharaoh in particular had an evangelistic thrust! Almost one and a half dozen times in these Scriptures, the reason that is given for the plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea is that they were not simply to eradicate the Egyptians or their king, but instead all of this was to take place so that “the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord” (Exod. 7: 5; see also Exod. 7: 17; 8: 22; 14: 4, 18). It is stated even more strenuously in Exodus 9: 14, 16: “[ T] his time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. . . . But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” There can be little mistaking that the word know here connotes more than a mere intellectual or cognitive awareness of who God is. It expresses a desire that the Egyptians might themselves come to a personal, experiential knowledge and appreciation of who Yahweh is. God would proclaim his own name among the Gentiles even if the Israelites were not outgoing in their witness. Should the question be raised as to the effectiveness of all these demonstrations of the power of God and proclamation of the word of God through the plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea, the answer is available to us. When Israel left Egypt, a “mixed multitude,” or a group of “many other people,” went out with them (Exod. 12: 38, author’s translation). This would seem to indicate that many Egyptians were more than merely impressed by what they saw and heard. Instead, they became some of the firstfruits of the work of God in their midst. Given the background of the Egyptian religion, with all of the gods symbolized by the very elements that were being directly hit by the plagues, it would seem fair to say that the plagues announced Yahweh’s victory over the power of the occultic religion of Egypt. Moses wanted Pharaoh and the people of Egypt to know through the plagues “that the earth is the Lord’s” (Exod. 9: 29). The idols of Egypt, as in every other nation, cult, or religion, were no match for the one and only living God! God’s word and power exceeded everything a mortal could ask for in a deity. Indeed, many of “those officials of Pharaoh who feared the word of the Lord hurried to bring their slaves and their livestock inside [from out in the fields]. But those who ignored the word of the Lord left their slaves and livestock in the field” during the plague of the hail (Exod. 9: 20–21). To fear the word of the Lord was to believe in him and to act on the basis of what he had said. Salvation was coming to some of the Egyptians because they responded obediently to the word of God.” (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Mission in the Old Testament: Israel as a Light to the Nations, 12-14 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic)
The Hebrews were called upon to show love and acceptance towards foreigners. This was due to the fact that the foreigners were made in God’s image, just as the chosen people of God were.
This same attitude of care towards foreigners is displayed throughout the New Testament as well. The principle, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” applies specifically to foreigners and even to our very enemies (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8). It is interesting that the well-known Parable of the Good Samaritan is found in a discussion of this principle of the Law of Moses.
Luke 10:25-37-And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” 27 So he answered and said, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND,’ and ‘YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'” 28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.” 29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ 36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” 37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
This passage highlights for us several important lessons about immigration.
“There is a clear reversal in meaning from the previous dialogue. Then, the lawyer was seeking to identify the neighbour whom he might love. Now, the neighbour is portrayed not as an object of pity, but as a person who has become a neighbour to the wounded man. There is, then, a neighbour at both ends of the communication of love: in the love command (Lk. 10.27), the neighbour is the object of pity; in the parable, he is the subject of pity (Lk. 10.36) (Bovon 1996: 99). Jesus’ commentary on the Torah does not commit the reader to “having” a neighbour but to “being” a neighbour, most especially to people who have suffered misfortune. The reciprocity implicit in Lev. 19.18 and in the Golden Rule is played out in the parable. It is the outsider, the stranger, who ministers with love to the needs of the wounded man. Again, expectations are reversed. It is neither the priest nor the Levite, the two heartless representatives of the official cult, but a despised Samaritan who understands the situation of need that he sees before him, shows kindness to the mistreated human victim, and takes steps actively to help him. In the ways we relate to the stranger, are we, present-day members of Jesus’ audience, more complicit and less innocent than we think? Do we have a duty to change our stance, to leave behind our comfort zone of self-centredness, insouciance, and arrogance? Might we even have a need for help from the stranger? ”. (Fleur S. Houston, You Shall Love the Stranger as Yourself: The Bible, Refugees and Asylum (Biblical Challenges in the Contemporary World), 142 (Kindle Edition): New York, NY: Routledge)
Throughout the Christian age, the church has been called upon to be the light of Christ in this world. While we as Christians have often fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8), the teaching of the power of the Word of God and of the glory of Christ’s doctrine regarding loving our fellow man has been one of our main directives. Sadly, throughout much of the history of America, racism has been the prevalent idea of our fellow countrymen. This was especially seen during World War II.
“On February 17, Roosevelt officially told Stimson and McCloy to draft an executive order authorizing evacuation—without informing Biddle. The matter, if not the manner, was settled. Roosevelt had made it as clear as he could: he did not want to hear any more of this. Stimson began working on an executive order that declared the evacuation “a matter of Military Necessity.” The final draft of the executive order did not mention the words “Japanese,” “Japanese American,” or “citizen.” Internal memos referred to American citizens of Japanese descent as “non-aliens.” That evening, Colonel Bendetsen and Assistant Attorney General Clark, who had flown into Washington the night before, went to Biddle’s home to meet with the attorney general, McCloy, and Gullion. After two of Biddle’s assistants, Ennis and Rowe, laid out the legal case against incarceration, Gullion pulled out the draft order approved by both War and Justice. Biddle’s assistants were stunned. Ennis was near tears. The attorney general himself said nothing, although he had sent a memo to the president that same day, saying: “A great many West Coast people distrust the Japanese, various special interests would welcome their removal from good farm land and the elimination of their competition.… My last advice from the War Department is that there is no evidence of imminent attack and from the FBI that there is no evidence of planned sabotage.” There was no answer from Roosevelt. The next day, Biddle said he and the Justice Department would have nothing to do with any evacuation. Gullion was beside himself, telling General Mark Clark that he had called Biddle and said, “‘ Well listen Mr. Biddle, do you mean to tell me that if the Army, the men on the ground, determine it is a military necessity to move citizens, Jap citizens, that you won’t help me?’ He didn’t give a direct answer, he said the Department of Justice would be through if we interfered with citizens and the right of habeas corpus, etc.” Biddle also received a call from California congressman Leland Ford, who had originally opposed evacuation and attacked Southern advocates of the idea as racists. Now, switching sides, Ford told his staff: I phoned the Attorney General’s office and told them to stop f****** around. I gave them twenty-four hours’ notice that unless they would issue a mass evacuation notice I would drag the whole matter out on the floor of the House and of the Senate and give the b******* everything we could with both barrels. I told them they had given us the runaround long enough … and that if they would not take immediate action, we would clean the g** d***** office out in one sweep. I cussed at the Attorney General and his staff … and he knew d*** well I meant business. So the military was going to have its way on evacuation. All Japanese, citizens and aliens, were going to be removed from the Pacific Coast.” (Richard Reeves, Infamy: The Shocking Story of the Japanese American Internment in World War II, 65-67 (Kindle Edition, curse words edited, M.T.); New York, NY; Henry Holt and Co)
It is sobering to consider that the same federal act which allowed the mass arrest of Japanese Americans is now being touted as the means to evoke another mass incarceration by the political powers in charge of our nation.
Some people believe that a wall around the country is the best means of dealing with the crisis of illegal immigration. While such a tactic is certainly viable for discussion, what should not be open for debate is the fantasy of president Donald Trump regarding this wall.
“But the president’s overarching goal was to make the experience of crossing the border into the United States as terrifying and perilous as possible. At one point, Trump became enamored of the idea of digging a trench along the border, so much so that Nielsen asked the Army Corps of Engineers to calculate the cost. (Twice to three times as expensive, they reported back.) Discussions with his advisers ensued about what would be inside the ditch: Water? Alligators? Snakes? Some of the president’s proposals were so outlandish that aides could not even tell whether he was serious. Trump was crystal clear on one point, though: the wall should be dangerous enough to dissuade immigrants from even attempting to scale it. More than once, he had instructed officials at the Department of Homeland Security to look into whether the wall could be electrified so that anyone touching it would receive a shock. He wanted the spikes on top to be sharp enough to pierce human flesh in an instant. He wanted concertina wire everywhere. Trump had vivid descriptions of what he wanted immigrants to experience if they tried to scale the wall: They would be burned, maimed, cut to pieces by the wire. I want these people to be in horrible shape if they climb up, the president would say. It was stunning. The president was openly advocating for illegal border crossers to be maimed and burned at the border, the kind of treatment usually associated with brutal dictators or military strongmen. In fact, Trump was envious of Kim Jong-un, the ruthless leader of North Korea, for the security of his border, fortified with land mines and policed by armed guards who shot to kill. “When you talk about a wall, when you talk about a border,” he said in 2019 before a visit to the Demilitarized Zone, “that’s what they call a border. Nobody goes through that border.” Trump expressed no sympathy for people clamoring to enter the United States. To the president, they were all criminals, the kinds of dangerous people he so frequently warned about during his rallies. He was determined to keep them out, and his aides were alarmed at what he was willing to do to get his way.” (Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Michael D. Shear, Border Wars: Inside Trump’s Assault On Immigration, 3-4 (Kindle Edition): New York, NY: Simon & Schuster)
Is the support of such a wall as described here in harmony with the teaching of Christ, Who reminds us to be characterized as those who love our neighbors as ourselves?
To ask is to answer.
Yet is it not true that the vast majority of immigrants in our country are responsible for increasing crime and depravity in America?
Actually, no.
The following lengthy quotation is offered for your consideration.
“Q21. Are Immigrants More Likely to Commit Crimes than Native-Born U.S. Citizens? Answer: No. The Facts: Although notions of immigrants being linked to criminality have become commonplace in political discourse, media coverage, and even national policy, such accusations are largely unfounded. Scholarship on the topic spanning decades has overwhelmingly found that immigrants actually show less propensity toward crime than native-born citizens and that immigration can even be considered a factor in the decrease of violent crime in the United States. Discourse linking immigrants to criminality has been present since the late 1800s, when public debates over the potential criminal nature of the foreign-born in the United States prompted the federal government to first become involved in immigration regulation (Moehling & Piehl, 2009). Both the Dillingham Commission in 1911 and the Wickersham Commission in the early 1930s devoted great time and resources to identifying the links between immigration and crime. Although neither commission found satisfactory evidence indicating the foreign-born had greater propensity toward crime or caused more crime, immigrants continued to be blamed for increasing crime rates (ibid.). Public policy in the early part of the 20th century was influenced to a large degree by preconceived beliefs about immigrants. It was also developed during an era when eugenics played an influential role in scientific research about the supposed inferiority of certain races. The Johnson–Reed Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 was a product of these beliefs. The act, which banned immigration from Asia and severely limited immigration from Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, and Africa, was passed partly upon the recommendation of Eugenics Record Office director Harry Laughlin, who had testified before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization (University of Missouri Libraries, 2012). Not surprisingly, public perceptions of immigrants as criminals continued throughout the 20th century, often informed by stereotypes and data that have since been dismissed by most of the scientific community. However, the association between immigration and criminality became notably more widespread after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (Chebel, 2012; Tirman, 2006). In the words of two prominent researchers, the immigrant–crime link “has flourished in a post-9/ 11 climate of fear and ignorance where terrorism and undocumented immigration often are mentioned in the same breath” (Rumbaut & Ewing, 2007). National security discussions dominated immigration policy after 9/ 11, leading to the removal of thousands of noncitizens who posed no demonstrated security risk (Chacón, 2007). Immediate government responses to the terrorist attacks included the arrest and detention of over 1,200 Muslim and Arab immigrants, none of which was found to be directly linked to the terrorist attacks (Johnson, 2005). Many detainees were held for weeks without charges; others were charged with minor crimes or held for immigration-related offenses. Public fear of additional terrorist threats also resulted in a surge of violence against persons perceived to be Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian. Such incidents included the murder of a Pakistani convenience store owner in Texas, the firebombing of a Pakistani restaurant in Salt Lake City, and an attack on a Mosque in Seattle. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that in 2001 there was a 1,600 percent increase in anti-Muslim hate crime incidents (Department of Justice, 2011). Statements made by prominent politicians in the years following the 9/ 11 attacks also created verbal linkages between immigrants and terrorism. Former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm warned, “One of the most important but most neglected subjects of the new national agenda is the relationship between immigration and terrorism” (2002). Well-known actor and former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson stated in 2007, “Twelve million illegal immigrants later, we are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world. . . . We’re sitting here now with essentially open borders” (Associated Press, 2007). Fox News channel’s Sean Hannity, addressing what he felt was inadequate scrutiny of those entering the United States, stated, “And that is as big a problem as the southern border where somebody wants a job and ISIS has the ability to walk across at will” (Poor, 2015). Thompson’s comments in particular reflect a tendency in political discourse to place unauthorized or “illegal” immigrants squarely at the center of intense debate and distrust. The opening lines of California’s Proposition 187 (passed in 1984 and later overturned by a federal court) state, “The people of California . . . have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal aliens in this state” (Proposition 187, 1994). In his 2006 special address to the nation, President George W. Bush stated that illegal immigration, among other things, “brings crime to our communities” (Bush, 2006). This idea that unauthorized immigrants pose a threat to the American public has been reinforced through massive federal expenditures for militarization of the southern U.S. border and increased governmental emphasis on border security since the mid-1990s (Andreas, 2012; Dunn & Palafox, 2007; Payan, 2006; Staudt, Payan, & Kruszewski, 2009). Media have become podiums for politicians and media personalities who believe immigrants are responsible for rising crime rates and violence in the United States. In 2008 Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio became star of his own reality show based on his aggressive and highly disputed immigration enforcement tactics. Arpaio, known for his hardline opposition to people in the United States without authorization, said “Illegal immigration breeds crime, disease” (Finnegan, 2009). In 2011 a federal judge ordered Arpaio to halt his immigration patrols, citing violation of constitutional rights through racial profiling and illegal detentions of Latinos (Santos, 2013). News anchors have also perpetuated the notion that immigrants are linked with higher rates of crime; in 2007 Lou Dobbs cited immigration and crime links on 94 episodes of Lou Dobbs Tonight, and that same year Bill O’Reilly discussed the connection on 66 episodes of The O’Reilly Factor (Media Matters, 2008). Tragedies such as the random fatal shooting of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle by suspect Juan Francisco López-Sanchez on a San Francisco pier in July 2015 have been used as examples to reinforce these assertions. López-Sanchez, who was in the United States illegally, held seven prior felony convictions and had been previously deported five times to his native Mexico (Melendez, 2015). Other serious crimes committed by immigrants in recent years have received similar widespread attention and have fueled debates and at times outrage over sanctuary city policies, border enforcement, national security, and similar immigrant-related topics. It is hardly surprising, then, that public perceptions of immigrants seem to mirror widespread political discourse and media coverage linking immigrants to crime. In a 2015 survey, half of U.S. adults responded that when it comes to crime immigrants make American life worse (Pew Research Center, 2015, September 28). Little seems to have changed since 1993 when a Time magazine poll showed 59 percent of respondents believed recent immigrants added to the crime problem (Nelan, 1993). One possible reason for the public’s skeptical attitudes toward foreigners is that many citizens have erroneous beliefs about the number of immigrants in the United States. In a study conducted by criminologist Xia Wang of Arizona State University, immigrants (and undocumented immigrants in particular) were consistently perceived as criminal (Wang, 2012). The perception of criminal threat rose in tandem with people’s perception of the size of the immigrant community, particularly undocumented immigrant populations. The larger the “illegal immigrant” population was believed to be, the larger the perceived criminal threat. Many study respondents also significantly overestimated the size of undocumented population as over half the overall foreign-born population, when in actuality the number is somewhere around 28 percent (ibid.). In spite of this long-standing public perception that immigration is connected to increased crime, scientific evidence does not support those claims. In fact, scores of studies over time indicate precisely the opposite—that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than their native-born counterparts (Bersani, Loughran, & Piquero, 2014; Butcher & Piehl, 2007; Ewing, Martínez, & Rumbaut, 2015). Scholars attribute these results to several factors. First, the process by which immigrants legally apply to come to the United States requires screening for criminal backgrounds. Those with clean records are the most likely to be granted entrance into the United States. Second, immigrants who come to the United States to make a better life for themselves have incentive to be self-disciplined and to avoid wrongdoing in order to succeed in their new environment. Third, immigrants in the United States without authorization have incentives to not commit crimes because doing so increases their likelihood of encountering law enforcement and potentially being deported (Butcher & Piehl, 2008). However, numbers provide the strongest evidence that immigrants are not more likely than natives to commit crimes. Data indicating lower crime and incarceration rates among immigrants comes from contemporary and historical studies, official crime statistics and victimization surveys since the early 1990s, three decennial (10-year) censuses, national and regional surveys in areas where immigrants are highly concentrated, and investigations by major government commissions during the past century (Rumbaut, 2008). One exception is a study by Jorg Spenkuch that finds a correlation between immigration and higher property crime rates. This study found that a 10 percent increase in the immigrant population led to a property crime rate increase of roughly 1.2 percent. Violent crime rates, however, remained unchanged (2011). Even Spenkuch notes that with the exception of this finding, no other academic research has found a positive link between immigration and higher crime rates. He states, “Almost three quarters of Americans believe immigration increases crime, yet existing academic research has shown no such effect” (2011, p. 1). I ndeed, nearly all of the literature on immigration and crime finds no correlation between the foreign-born and increased crime rates. “The major finding of a century of research on immigration and crime is that . . . immigrants nearly always exhibit lower crime rates than native groups” (Martinez & Lee, 2000, p. 496). Following are examples of some of these findings. Studies Using Neighborhood-Level Analysis Living in neighborhoods with immigrant concentrated populations was directly associated with lower rates of violence (Sampson, 2008). The study indicates that immigration diversity, whether the immigrants were authorized or unauthorized, is protective against violence. In the words of Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson who conducted the research, “Cities of concentrated immigration are some of the safest places around” (p. 30). Crime rates of first-and second-generation immigrants have been found to be lower than those of their native-born peers (Hagan, Levi, & Dinovitzer, 2008). More specifically, in a study involving 3,000 individuals in Chicago who had committed violent crimes, it was found that first-generation immigrants (born outside the United States) were 45 percent less likely to commit violence than third-generation Americans (who are, by place of birth, citizens). Second-generation immigrants (who are citizens) were 22 percent less likely than third-generation Americans (also citizens) to commit violence (Sampson, 2008). In a similar 2014 study, the crime rate among first-generation immigrants aged 12–24 was found to be significantly lower than the overall crime rate. However, by the second generation (American citizens by birth) the crime rate soars, almost catching up to native-born levels (Bersani, 2014). Researchers theorize that through the process of assimilation, second-generation immigrants become as susceptible to temptation and harmful influences as their native peers, resulting in more criminal acts (ibid.). A study of Miami, El Paso, and San Diego neighborhoods indicates that immigration does not generally increase homicide levels among Latinos and African Americans (Lee, Martinez, & Rosenfeld, 2001). Studies Using Metropolitan-Level and National Analysis In a study examining the relationship between immigration and homicide rates in large cities across the United States, it was found that cities with greater concentrations of immigrant populations had lower homicide rates. The study did find, however, that in regard to gang-related homicides, there was a positive correlation with immigration (Kubrin & Ousey, 2009). Broad reductions in violent crime between 1994 and 2004 were partially attributed to increases in immigration (Stowell et al., 2009). This conclusion was reached based on multivariate analyses indicating a decrease in violent crime as metropolitan areas experienced gains in their immigrant populations. In California between 2000 and 2005, crime rates fell further in cities with a higher percentage of recent immigrants than they did in cities with a lower share of immigrants. This was especially true of the rate of violent crimes (Butcher & Piehl, 2008). Violent crime in the United States decreased between 2002 and 2013, according to FBI statistics, and 2013 data shows a 4.4 percent overall decrease from 2012 crime rates (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014). During roughly the same time period, the immigrant population in the United States increased by roughly 10 million people (Zong & Batalova, 2015). If immigrants are more likely to commit crimes, it would be expected that the crime rate would rise in correspondence with immigrant populations. A study examining how Mexican weather patterns and rainfall affected migration patterns to U.S. cities found that “Mexican immigration is associated with no appreciable change in the rates of either violent or property crimes in U.S. cities” (Chalfin, 2014, p. 1). Incarcerations and Criminality According to analysis of 2010 data, approximately 1.6 percent of immigrant males aged 18–39 are incarcerated compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born. Census data demonstrates that this has been true for decades, with native-born incarceration rates being anywhere from two to five times higher than that of immigrants (Ewing, Martínez, & Raumbaut, 2015). For every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men were found to be lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. Researchers found this to be especially true for those who make up the majority of the undocumented population—Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans. In 2000, the incarceration rate among men aged 18–39 was five times higher for the native-born than for the foreign-born (Rumbaut & Ewing, 2007). Foreign-born persons make up roughly 35 percent of the adult population in California, but only about 17 percent of the adult prison population in the state. In fact, in California native-born adult men have an incarceration rate over two-and-a-half times that of foreign-born men (Butcher & Piehl, 2008). This same study found that when the focus was broadened from prisons to multiple forms of institutionalization (e.g., jails and halfway houses), U.S.-born men aged 18–40 have an institutionalization rate 10 times higher than that of foreign-born men (ibid.). Despite the pledge by Jeh Johnson, secretary of Department of Homeland Security, to focus the department’s efforts and resources on individuals convicted of serious crimes, two-thirds or more of the persons issued detainers (immigration holds) in April 2015 by local or state police departments on behalf of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency did not have any type of criminal conviction (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, 2015b). In 2012, that number was 50 percent, reflecting an increase in the issuance of detainers to individuals without criminal backgrounds (ibid.).” (Cari Lee Skogberg Eastman, Immigration: Examining the Facts (Contemporary Debates), 121-127 (Kindle Edition, emphasis added): Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, LLC)
Indeed, many immigrants are in our country due to their being refugees. A refugee is one who flees from his country because he is facing persecution or significant threat to his life. We have seen an enormous surge in refugees since the U.S. withdrawal of troops from Syria in 2019. After this event, the Kurds were brutally attacked by Turkey and an entire military base was handed over to the Russians. The Kurds (who had been allies to America since 9-11 and had helped us fight against the terrorists who attacked our country) were forced from their homes.
Judging from the Scriptures mentioned above, several thins stand out for us as we deal with the subject of immigration in our country.
First, immigration policies should reflect up to date situations and circumstances. When God provided His legislation regarding the subject of foreigners in Israel, He made it clear that the laws governing such were up to date and current. A country whose immigration laws have not been revised in decades should provide us evidence that such need to be carefully amended to deal with the current context.
Second, foreigners in Israel who were found to be breaking the laws of the land were not exempt from punishment because of their foreigner status.
Third, in Israel, those who fled due to abusive situations were given protected status. One example is from the case of slaves in the land. If slaves were abused, they were to be set free (Exodus 21:26-27). Slave Traders were to be killed (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7). Abused run-away slaves were NOT to be returned to their abusers (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). Slave-Masters who killed their slaves were to be put to death
Exodus 21:20-And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
Exodus 21:20 (CEV)-Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves.
The point of all this is that people who were fleeing due to persecution and abuse were afforded protected status.
Fourth, as Christians, we must show compassion as far as possible to everyone, regardless of race or social status. This is one of the defining characteristics of being a follower of Christ. We must not allow stereotyping and racism to guide our conscience and our actions.
Shall we turn a blind eye to those who are denied basic human compassion because they are deemed “illegal immigrants?”
Shall we shrug our shoulders if children who have been brought “illegally” to America are locked in cages?
Will we allow a person’s “legal status” to keep us from providing healthcare for those who are seriously ill or in need of food and clothing?
Finally, while we obey the laws of the land (Romans 13:1-7), laws that are unjust or superseded by Divine law must be opposed.
Acts 5:29-But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.
As the next stage of American history unfolds before our eyes, and the subject of how we treat foreigners becomes more of an issue, may those of us who are Christians allow the Word of God to direct our steps, and may the compassion of Christ guide us.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.