2 of 2

At the same time, the founders noted, "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive … , it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. … " If this is true of a particular authority (like the U.S. or British governments), how much more true of individual laws?

Laws are repudiated regularly in large and small ways by otherwise law-abiding people. Sometimes, laws are ignored because they fail to serve the genuine and irrepressible needs or desires of people, or do more harm than good, or because they are simply impossible to enforce. Laws that are impossible to enforce do as much damage to respect for law as does excessive disobedience.

This was certainly the case with Prohibition: It became increasingly impossible to enforce consistently partly because it never really gained the assent of the populace.

It is arguably the case with our current immigration laws, and especially with some of the more draconian bills recently introduced (but now apparently abandoned) in the House of Representatives. Since 9/11, U.S. law has made it so onerous and expensive to gain entry into this country, immigrants whose lives are being destroyed by economic and/or political oppression, have determined to pursue life and liberty regardless. Before 9/11 there were some 8 million undocumented workers in the U.S. Now there are 12 million—a 50 percent increase in a mere five years—despite increased surveillance and enforcement. Clearly the current immigration law not only fails to address the needs of desperate people, it is for all purposes unenforceable.

A further unenforceable fact: the near impossibility of "holding accountable" (as some readers argue) the 12 million undocumented workers in our midst. We can think of no way the government could round up and deport 12 million people—short of creating a police state. This does not mean we would recommend a blanket amnesty. But it does mean whatever provision we create for these 12 million, we should make sure it meets the genuine social and political needs that these 12 million represent (both their needs, and our nation's need for workers), and that it is enforceable.

The issue before us is not whether law should be obeyed in normal circumstances. We all agree on that. In addition, everyone agrees that under certain circumstances, laws should be disobeyed. Even normally law-abiding Christians assent to that—or deny the witness of Scripture.

The question is: Under what circumstances is it appropriate to disobey a law? And the particular question facing us now is: If a person from another land is suffering economic and political hardship, and if the immigration policies of the U.S. make it nearly impossible for some immigrants to enter this nation, is it legitimate (albeit regrettable) for an immigrant to enter this nation clandestinely to gain those freedoms?

About this particular concern, Christians will disagree. Some will argue that compassion for the suffering should take precedence over strict adherence to law.

While security, overtaxed healthcare, and other issues also desperately need to be addressed, CT thinks legislative reform should give some slack to those who have entered our land illegally. Some will remain unconvinced.

But it seems to us that those who remain unconvinced have to do more than merely proclaim the supremacy of law-and-order. They have to explain, in the face of the biblical teaching to extend hospitality to the stranger and succor to the suffering, why the law of man should reign supreme in this instance.

We welcome responses, and we will post a selection online.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Christianity Today's full coverage on immigration issues is available on our site.

The latest AP news on the immigration bill is available from Yahoo. Yahoo's full-coverage page is also available.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported a letter supporting the naturalization of illegal aliens had split evangelical groups. The Wall Street Journal is also reporting on a rift between evangelicals on the immigration issue.

Slate magazine has a dispatch on patrol with the Minutemen—the independent group that rounds up those attempting to enter the U.S. illegally. Last year, World also covered them.

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

April (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50