Thread: Is It Immoral To Secure The Border?

05/11/2007
Joe Murray: Is It Immoral To Secure The Border?
By: Joe Murray , The Bulletin

"At this particular moment in our history, there seems to be these strident voices that are very much anti-immigrant," opined Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop of Los Angeles, referring to the 80-plus percent of American people who supported securing America's southern border in 2006.
Since the archbishop of Los Angeles uttered those words, he has called for priests to ignore a proposed federal immigration bill, i.e. the 2006 Sensenbrenner-King Bill that would have required proof of citizenship before assistance is given to a person, and attempted to seize upon Scripture to muzzle anti-amnesty Christians in the marketplace of ideas.
Specifically, Cardinal Mahony proclaimed, "I would say to all priests, deacons and members of the Church that we are not going to observe this law." Why would a U.S. cardinal flagrantly defy the law of the nation he resides? It was the moral thing to do.
And this past week, Cardinal Mahony came to the City of Brotherly Love to bring his message of civil disobedience to the Constitution Center for the Fifth Annual John M. Templeton, Jr., Lecture on Economic Liberties and the Constitution.
"My perspective on this issue is shaped by the Gospel of Jesus Christ," the archbishop of Los Angeles readily admitted. Quick to seize the moral high ground, Cardinal Mahony next stated, "Movement to places of hope is woven into the fabric of the biblical story ... . Scriptures teach us to have compassion for those who seek hope, and this applies even after 9/11." Thus, the implication being that those who seek to secure the border and defend America from an unprecedented immigrant invasion are outside Catholic orthodoxy.
This brings us to the question at hand: does the open border, amnesty-first gang, whether championed by a cardinal or coyote, hold the moral high ground in the debate over immigration? Can it be that an enforcement-first immigration policy, as Cardinal Mahony stated on Tuesday, "violates the order of God's household" and turns its back "on the biblical legacy of hope." Are those heeding Ronald Reagan's words that a nation that cannot secure its border ceases to be a nation going against the biblical grain? The Tijuana talking heads would say yes, but the Bible may render an objection.
It is clear that the concepts of nationalism and patriotism so decried by the open borders gang are grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. In Acts, Paul stated, "He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions so that people may see God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any of us." (Acts 17: 26-27). Thus, according to Paul, the creation of borders and the separation of people by culture, creed, race and language, was part of God's plan to bring us closer to Him.
Paul's understanding of this biblical principle is further supported in the Book of Genesis. From the dawn of creation, mankind began to separate and establish distinct nations.
"These are the descendants of Japheth, and from them sprang the maritime nations, in their respective lands - each with its own language - by their clans within their nations." (Genesis 10:5). At the end of Chapter 10, it is written that "[t]hese are the groupings of Noah's sons, according to their origins and by their nations. From these the other nations of the earth branched out of the flood." (Genesis 10:32).
The teaching of Genesis is undeniable - the blood and soil concept of nationhood, as well as the longing for a distinct cultural identity, has been woven into the fabric of humanity. Thus, while Cardinal Mahony may be correct that hope is woven into the Christian experience, such a concept is not absolute and must be balanced against the concepts of national identity.
Furthermore, notwithstanding the musings of the multicultural moralists, identifying your nation by language and creed has been the basis for birthing such a nation; it is a basis rooted in the Bible and is a basis that has birthed some of the world's greatest civilizations. Since it can be concluded that language and culture matter in maintaining the nations created by God, the next question is whether a nation has the right to protect its unique culture by securing its borders? Absolutely.
The open border banditos are quick to point to Exodus 22:21 as support for their argument that it is immoral for the American people to mark return to sender those who have broken into their country. Exodus 22:21 states that "[y]ou shall not wrong an alien, neither shall you oppress him, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt." There is no doubt that if this verse existed in a biblical bubble, the moral capital of the open border argument would take on wings. This, however, is not the case.
Exodus 22:21, in keeping with the Catholic, not evangelical, tradition must be interpreted in light of other principles contained in the Bible. When such a task is undertaken, it is clear the aliens are not always seen as helpless transients.
Jeremiah lamented, "Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens." (Lamentations 5:2). Joel was unabashedly exclusionary when he proclaimed, "then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall be no strangers pass through her any more." (Joel 3:17). Translation - if the costs of hosting the "aliens" begin to outweigh their benefits, the eviction notice can be served.
Even more compelling? Shortly after God proclaimed that aliens should not be oppressed, He quickly made an addendum to the aforementioned covenant. In order that his people may have territory hospitable to building and preserving their culture, creed, ethnicity and religion, God proclaims that: "I will drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Take care, therefore, not to make a covenant with these inhabitants of the land you are to enter; else they will become a snare among you." (Exodus 34:11-13). In other words, those that threaten your stability are snares, not strangers, and need not be welcomed into your home.
Make no mistake, the Bible does not provide immigrants with a red carpet to invade and occupy foreign lands. Judeo-Christian nations have a biblical mandate to balance their responsibility to care for immigrants against the needs of people whose care is entrusted to them. When immigrants take advantage of one's national hospitality, pollute the cultural well of the host nation or violate the laws of the nation they reside, a Christian nation, or any nation for that matter, can show them the door and quickly turn the deadbolt.
The Gospel of Matthew, however, raises one last question. In that Gospel, Jesus calls Christians "to love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:39). If this Gospel passage is applied to our treatment of immigrants, is it possible for one to still love his neighbor while protecting the house in which he lives? The answer, of course, is yes.
Just because America is protecting her borders and her people from a populous people who do not share our ethnic identity, our culture, our language and our race does not mean we do not love our neighbors. Quite the contrary.
Was it not America who rushed to the aid of Mexico City by overnighting a $50 billion check to bail out that nose-diving economy? Not to mention the U.S. aid that pours into Mexico on a daily basis. Can one say NAFTA.
The notion that the only way we can love our Mexican neighbors is by handing them the keys to the store is not biblically based, nor is it consistent with the charge nations have to protect the interests of its own people. It is about time that someone knocked the open borders banditos off their high horses.


Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us


http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm ... 6361&rfi=6


©The Evening Bulletin 2007

Awsome post Jim! I sure hope those words reach Cardinal Mahony....he could sure use a dose of "enlightenment"... A true and faithful Christian has to wonder how someone with supposed spiritual athourity like the Cardnial can see things in such a dim perspective. Discernment is apparently not his strong point. Thank you Joe Murray for shining your light!!!