Is Immigration Policy in the Bible?

Now and then modernist Christians drag the Bible into political debates. I’m not sure why they expect anybody to be impressed by the opinions of dead, white advocates of patriarchy. Certainly, they don’t turn to such sources for religious enlightenment. They seem to have the peculiar idea that, while the evangelists knew nothing worth knowing about God, they can furnish useful guidance on, say, immigration policy.

We learn from Dave Kopel, that a Presbyterian Church (USA) spokesman recently declared that her denominational hierarchy’s opposition to strict immigration enforcement “is based on the scripture passage Matthew 25, verses 31-46, which talks about nations being judged, in part, by how they treat strangers”. She added,

Joseph and Mary had to flee persecution. Jesus was not born in his home community. Jesus and his family perhaps would have been locked up with a strict border approach to immigration.

I’m no immigration restrictionist, but this line of argument suggests that the Presbyterian spokeswoman, the delightfully named Elenora Giddings-Ivory, hasn’t done a lot of Bible reading lately.

Matthew 25:31–46 is Christ’s well known parable of His separation of the sheep from the goats at the Last Judgement, a text that all Christians should ponder frequently but not one that “talks about nations being judged”. The Judgement is individual and moral, not collective and political. The sheep placed on Our Lord’s right hand are commended for welcoming strangers, among other good deeds. It is a long stretch to infer that God condemns the enforcement of rules for crossing international boundaries.

The parallel between Christ’s parents and illegal aliens is downright silly. Mr. Kopel points out that Mary and Joseph weren’t trying to sneak into another country in violation of the law. Rather, they were exemplars of civil obedience:

Why were they traveling? Not so that Joseph could live someplace illegally as an “undocumented worker,” but for the opposite reason. They were going to Bethlehem to comply with the Empire-wide tax and census decree issued by Augustus Caesar. Joseph, being from the House of David, had to go to David’s city because “everyone went to his own town to register.” . . .

[O]ne of the symbolic points made by the story is that Joseph and his very pregnant spouse went far out of the way (literally) to comply with a government tax and census law. . . . Whatever you want to say about Joseph the carpenter, you have to admit that he did everything possible to make sure that he was not an “undocumented worker.”

The flight into Egypt came later, and refugees in analogous circumstances are not “locked up” under American law.

Under current U.S. immigration law, the Joseph/Mary/Jesus family would have been entitled to asylum in the United States because they would have been able to prove that they could not return to their home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.§1101(a)(42)(A). (U.S. immigration officers and the reviewing court might not have credited Joseph’s fear of persecution, which was based on a dream. But hypothetically, the family could have called the Magi as witnesses, who could attest to Herod’s obsession with Jesus, and called other witnesses who could have testified about the Massacre of the Innocents that Herod had perpetrated in Israel.)

Miss Gidding-Ivory’s misreadings presumably spring largely from ignorance. Perhaps she has glanced through the Cliff’s Notes on Matthew and Luke. But they also hint at the frivolity of the modernist approach to Scripture. Like some of the less reasonable fundamentalists, her ilk sees the Bible as a collage of “proof texts”, ready to be snipped from their context and applied to support the user’s favored positions. The difference, of course, is that the fundies believe that they are quoting God’s veritable Word. What’s an up-to-date Presbyterian’s excuse?

Addendum: Let me elevate the following, attributed by the commenter to SF fan Taras Wolansky, to the main text of this post:

It occurs to me that liberals are to the Constitution what an ivory hunter is to a jungle god, in one of those old stories: he doesn’t believe in the god himself, but the natives do, and so he hides behind the statue of the god and gives the natives orders through a speaking trumpet.

Comments

[Samuel]

"When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another..."

Actually, it does talk "about nations being judged”" - Mexicans and Americans. The Bible repeatedly commands compassion towards foreigners and aliens, and as stated, refuges. The racism and xenophobia that exists is wrong, when the Bible describes two peoples - the Gentiles (Chinese, African, Irish) and the Jews, and from those two peoples those who have faith have been reconciled "both unto God in one body by the cross."
Your second point (The Judgement is individual and moral, not collective and political.) is certainly possible.
I remember visiting a liberal church once that followed a strict 'matthew 25' line, in effect claiming that salvation was based on works - implying that its okay for people not to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or to continue using their pornography, yelling and screaming at their wives, as long as they made sure they did a couple of hours of good deeds.
Jesus and His Apostles, who were with Him for years and saw Him for 40 days after He was raised from the dead, said it was by grace, through faith, not works. Truth faith leads to a life, not just a weekend, of good works done through the strength that God's Spirit provides, to God's glory. Abraham, David, Moses and the thief on the cross next to Jesus were saved through their God-given faith. A person who claims that salvation is based on the works of Matthew 25 usually does not say how many hours/dollars is necessary for each activity to 'buy your way into heaven' or what happens to those unable (disabled) to complete the tasks. The only price that God will accept is Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God by miracles, who was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowldge of God and who was crucified and slain by wicked hands, who God raised up. Only the sinless Son of God crucified and dying in the place of sinners can bring peace between God and man, not donating a couple of hours of your time or writing a $2000 check. Of course, born again Christians regularly love their neighbor, here and abroad by helping with food, clothing, shelter, rent, medical care, and prison ministry.

It would have been more interesting had the PC-USA spokesperson finished Matthew 25,
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (v.46) After all, God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

[Joseph T Major]

There's an interesting comment Taras Wolansky made about a similar situation:

"It occurs to me that liberals are to the Constitution what an ivory hunter is to a jungle god, in one of those old stories: he doesn't believe in the god himself, but the natives do, and so he hides behind the statue of the god and gives the natives orders through a speaking trumpet."