There has probably never been a time in American history when the topic of illegal immigration has been in the news as much as it is these days. For sure, it has been a political issue for many decades, but in times past virtually everyone, on both sides of the political isle, at least gave lip service to the need to curb illegal immigration.
That is not the case anymore. Now, there is a clear divide on this subject that is completely out in the open. There are those who think illegal immigration is a serious problem and want it stopped, and others who believe in, and openly advocate for, open borders.
There are multiple reasons this is often a difficult issue for Christians to deal with. One reason is that the problem is sometimes portrayed as a humanitarian issue. Many of those entering the country illegally came from places where there is a great deal of poverty and oppression. Many self-identified Christians see this as a compassion issue, and reason enough to support it. Another reason some Christians have a difficult time with this is that it seems to them “unfair” to return illegals to their home country after they have been in America for a long time.
The truth is, what we are looking at now are two different problems, not one – one relating to the matter of illegal immigration itself, and the other related to the humanitarian crisis resulting from not having dealt with the problem in the past. The fact that this matter has been allowed to continue for so long has created a set of problems that is entirely outside of the actual reason immigration laws should be enforced. It is the convergence of these two problems that has created the confusion we see today.
The real reason for enforcing immigration laws does not relate to humanitarian issues at all. Humanitarian problems are the result of the laws not having been enforced in the past. It is actually necessary to deal with the humanitarian element of the problem using an entirely different set of principles. What we are looking at here, though, has to do with the concept of illegal immigration itself. What is a biblical perspective on that?
What is the Issue?
When considering the topic of illegal immigration, there are two principles that come into play. Both of these together provide us with the parameters within which we must deal with this problem.
The first principle relates to the matter of order in society. Most people recognize the need for order, as it is necessary for society to function. The general disagreement between Christian Theists and Naturalists does not relate so much to a recognition of the need for order, but on the best way to accomplish it. Virtually everyone recognizes the need.
The second issue that must be considered regards the rule of law. Throughout history, order in society has virtually always been maintained by the use of force. There has generally always been some leader or ruling class that creates and enforces order. Justice and fairness have virtually never been the chief principles upon which societal order was maintained. Rather, it has been based on the will of rulers who used their own personal moral philosophy as the basis for maintaining order.
When America was founded and the law was established as the nation’s ultimate ruler, it was a brand new concept. Rather than order being maintained by the rule of the ruler, laws were established that were designed to create true justice and fairness. The issue at hand in modern times is whether the rule of law will continue to be the guiding principle of the nation, or if the power of some ruling class, based on a political agenda, will take over.
The Presuppositions of Conflicting Notions of Immigration
Of course there are exceptions, but generally speaking, those who believe in Christian Theism do not have a negative view of immigration. They do, however, believe that it needs to be done in an orderly and legal way. Those who hold to naturalistic beliefs, though, do not have any objective basis for determining right and wrong on this issue, and many don’t see any reason why migrants can’t freely come into the U.S. if they believe there is a legitimate reason for doing so (of course, legitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder). So, what is the reasoning behind these two points of view?
Biblical Theism
There are two basic principles that underlie the mindset of Christian Theists. The first is that a government has a right and an obligation to maintain order in society. The second principle, which emerges out of the first, regards a respect for the rule of law. We see these two principles promoted in various places in the Bible (the verses below are quoted from the ESV).
Joshua 1:16-17
They answered Joshua, saying, “All that you have commanded us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go. “Just as we obeyed Moses in all things, so we will obey you; only may the LORD your God be with you as He was with Moses.
Ezra 7:26
Whoever will not observe the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be executed upon him strictly, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of goods or for imprisonment.
Ecclesiastes 8:2
I say, “Keep the command of the king because of the oath before God.
Jeremiah 29:7
‘Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare.’
Luke 20:21-25
They questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, we know that You speak and teach correctly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. “Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But He detected their trickery and said to them, “Show Me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?” They said, “Caesar’s.” And He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Romans 13:1
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Romans 13:7
Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
1 Timothy 2:1-4
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Titus 3:1
Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed,
1 Peter 2:13-17
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.
Order in Society
One of the foundational aspects of God’s personhood can be expressed by saying that God is a God of order. For instance, in 1 Cor. 14:33 we read: For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. It is a simple matter of common sense that when there is chaos and confusion, it is very difficult to accomplish any purpose. God has a purpose for the world – which is to bring all of mankind into relationship with himself. When there is chaos and disorder, it is very difficult to maintain an environment where God can work through people to accomplish his purpose, as is his desire.
To accomplish his purpose, he established societal institutions. Many times, people operate these institutions in ways that are contrary to God’s will, but even that does not nullify the purpose of the institutions themselves. One of those institutions is government. God’s purpose for the existence of government is to promote order in society.
Rule of Law
The rule of law represents another expression of God’s character. He is a God of justice. Ultimately, justice has an objectively real foundation. There is such a thing as an objectively true right and wrong, and God has revealed what that is.
Throughout the history of mankind, nations have been ruled almost exclusively by human beings who had the power to determine for themselves what is right and wrong. This kind of basis for law is relativistic by nature. Even in places where there is some kind of guiding principle above the ruler(s), the ruler(s) generally still has the power to overrule it at will.
The American experiment, with the U.S. Constitution as its foundational legal document, created a different dynamic. The philosophy underlying this approach mimics the belief that God’s word, as the highest moral authority, cannot be righteously violated because it is the objectively right truth of the God who revealed it. Regarding the Constitution, rather than a ruler being the highest authority, the law (the Constitution) was put in that position, and all other laws, and people in positions of authority, must conform to its guidelines. Thus, even those in positions of political power are subject to the law. As the Constitution is a temporal document, as opposed to the permanence of God, there is a way that it can be changed. But no human person has the authority to do that. It must be done through a legal process based on the authority of the law itself.
Naturalism
As Naturalism recognizes no transcendent reality, there can be no such thing as moral laws that have any kind of objective foundation. All laws, no matter their intent, are based on nothing more than the prevailing opinion of those who hold power. When it comes to immigration, the issues that are debated among Naturalists have to do with various philosophical beliefs about the survival of the species and the nature of man, not about objective right and wrong.
In Naturalism, human beings are understood to be nothing more than naturally evolved animal creatures, no more or less important than any other animal creature. There is, of course one difference – human beings are recognized to have a more highly evolved brain, and are thus capable of self-conscious thought not possible with other animal species. With that capability, mankind must operate in the arena of morality, and make decisions about how to organize societies.
Based on naturalistic philosophy, the most critical decisions human beings must make relate to how to promote survival. Thus, when it comes to immigration policy, the most important decisions that must be made relate to how the migration of people from one place to another affects survival potential.
With that as a starting point, there is no objective right or wrong as it relates to immigration policy. There are actually groups of people who believe that all government should be done away with, and society should be organized based on a voluntary, cooperative model that operates without any recourse to force or compulsion. These anarchists believe that given the opportunity, people will naturally cooperate in a way that provides order in society. There are other Naturalists who base their political philosophy on a Socialist model. These look to a principle based on the priority of the collective to determine how migrants should be considered. Both of these approaches are relativistic, and ultimately depend on the power of human leaders to make final decisions.
Closely related to the survival issue is the nature of humanity. As already mentioned, based on naturalistic philosophy, human beings are viewed as nothing more than natural animals. With that as a starting point, no human is seen as more important than any other. One of the policy expressions that often naturally flows from that is that since all humans are a part of the same species, it is wrong to keep certain groups of humans penned up in particular countries and not allow them to freely migrate to places where they can have a better life.
Is the Secularist View of Immigration True?
Based on a naturalistic worldview, there is no such thing as any kind of rule being objectively true. All morality is relative, so the belief about how immigration should be handled must be relative to the situation – which is necessarily tied to the views of those who hold power.
When it comes to the truth of a naturalistic view of immigration, a secularist view is not true. It leads either to anarchy or totalitarianism. This approach to reality does not reflect human nature. It has no objectively right way of promoting order, freedom, or justice. In fact, all of these are destroyed when relativism is the dominant point of view. It leaves it up to those in power to maintain order however they see fit.
Those who desire open borders are using immigration as a political tool. It is, to them, considered a legitimate way to accomplish the goals of those in power. If the open borders crowd do gain power, even they will have to, at some point, stop it, because they would not be able to govern in the chaos that open borders causes. At that point, naturalistic worldview beliefs would deem it okay to change the rules.
What is the Answer?
A biblical worldview, on the other hand, posits the belief that human beings are made in the image of God and live life as persons who are characterized by the personhood characteristics of God himself. As such, characteristics such as a desire for order and justice are innate parts of the human condition. Thus, the principles of the maintenance of order and the rule of law are natural societal expressions that human beings seek to create. These principles are exactly the opposite of what naturally flows out of naturalistic worldview beliefs.
As it relates to the topic of immigration, based on a naturalistic worldview, there is nothing inherently wrong with illegal immigration. It is only understood to be a problem if it somehow begins to create problems for the survival of the species – and that determination is made based on the beliefs of the ones who are in power. This approach to determining right and wrong inherently promotes totalitarian government, and sees justice in relativistic terms.
Freedom and true justice can only exist when the priority is on the individual, and when morality is based on objective, fixed laws. Only a biblical worldview provides that kind of foundation. It alone views the individual as having priority over the collective, and provides an objective set of beliefs that are capable of providing societal order without totalitarian rule.
© 2019 Freddy Davis