Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (7)

Related articles and links |  1 of 1

Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, James K. Hoffmeier, author of The Immigration Crisis, and David Skeel is author of Icarus in the Boardroom, suggest the next steps in reforming immigration.

Perhaps it's anathema for a lawyer to question how far we can get with a simple legal change, but I think we need to be modest in our aspirations for legislative solutions to immigration.

If I were a lawmaker, I would focus less on trying to solve the current impasse, and more on legal reform that might unsettle both sides just a little. Here's my proposal: Why not adjust our levels of new immigration each year based on changes in the unemployment rate, or on the scope of our social welfare benefits, or on both? Under this proposal, new immigration would be reduced if unemployment goes up or Congress enacts new health-care legislation. In a year in which unemployment drops or Congress enacts welfare reform, immigration would automatically be expanded.

Immigrationists hate the suggestion that there's a tradeoff between immigration and entitlements, but they can't have both. Immigrationists need to acknowledge that immigration is a legitimate concern when unemployment is rising, and that a generous social safety net can attract immigrants even when there's no work. They also sometimes forget that a country's first obligation is to the health and welfare of its own citizens.

While restrictionists would no doubt ditto these points, they would balk at the possibility that immigration might increase from one year to the next. But restrictionists need to recognize that immigration will always be fluid, and that clamping down on immigration isn't going to stop the creative ferment that the recent tidal wave of immigration has brought. And not all of the changes brought by immigration are pernicious, as any evangelical whose church was once entirely white can attest.

In my view, our greatest mistake in the immigration legislation of the past several decades has been pretending to please the most passionate advocates on both sides. The most recent major reforms, in the 1980s and 1990s, gave legal status to several million non-legal immigrants, which pleased immigrationists. But the reforms also imposed tight limits on new immigration at the insistence of restrictionists. Both sides rejoiced, though few thought that the limits would be seriously enforced. And they weren't.

The disconnect between the laws and the reality on the ground has created a moral dilemma—call it a Jephthah's choice (Judges 11:30-40)—one that is wrenching for churches and Christian leaders. Jephthah had to decide whether to violate the oath he had sworn or to kill his daughter. While churches' predicament is not so dire, they must choose between flouting the law so as to be compassionate havens, or insisting that immigrant congregants comply with laws that are flawed and erratically enforced.

No one legal change will solve the immigration dilemma. The most we can hope for may be to change the symbols of the debate. If lawmakers can signal that immigration is dynamic and messy, and that there is no "comprehensive" solution, and if they can diminish the moral dilemma that the current laws create, they will have made progress.

Copyright © 2010 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

David Skeel, author of Icarus in the Boardroom, is a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Samuel Rodriguez and James K. Hoffmeier also suggested the best way to reform immigration.

Christianity Today articles on immigration include:

Evangelicals Endorse Immigration Reform | The National Association of Evangelicals' board overwhelmingly approved a resolution to seek 'faith and equal treatment' of immigrants. (October 9, 2009)

The Soul of the Border Crisis | Local churches are key in fixing the immigration mess. A Christianity Today editorial (June 8, 2009)

Interview: When the Stranger Knocks | The influx of immigrants to the U.S. means a new mission field for American evangelicals, says World Relief's Jenny Hwang. (May 11, 2009)

Previous Village Green sections have discussed Lent, premarital abstinence, aid to foreign nations, technology, and abortion.

 1 of 1

March 2010, Vol. 54, No. 3

Displaying 1–5 of 7 comments

See all comments