Immigration
& the Bible
Many
Christians opposed to allowing immigrants without visas to receive permanent
status point to Romans 13:1-7 to argue that governing authority must
absolutely and unconditionally be followed. Hence, the concept of the divine right
of Kings. Under this scenario,
there never would have been a Reformation, Revolution and the United States of
America. First recognize that the
Reformation was a direct revolution or rebellion against the Powers of Rome and
the Roman Church. It was based
solidly upon scripture and scriptural adherence. Was it wrong because it was
rebellion? Who was it in rebellion
to Men or God?
The
second logical issue comes to whether U.S. law which itself is based upon
rebellion (resistance or refusal to submit) against King George of England. Was this a legitimate act for
Christians? If it was then you have
provided at least one example where such resistance or refusal to submit is
appropriate, on the other hand if it was illegitimate then are we under any
obligation to follow the law of such an illegitimate government? One could argue that even if the U.S.
was an illegitimate government once the it was established as a power Christians
are required the blindly obey all of its laws even if they conflict with God’s
higher law. Of course this analysis
will lead people to accept the Mark of the Beast as an act of submitting to the
Powers that be. We know what
happens to any that do take the mark. (Re 19:20)
The
third logical issue, which must be confronted, is determining who is the power
that must be obeyed in a republican - democracy. This requires an answer to the question
in a republican - democracy who is the Sovereign? Our Declaration of Independence
states:
“When
in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to
the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on
such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem
most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate
that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed
to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the
forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such
has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity
which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history
of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid
world.”
The
Constitution of the United States of America in its preamble
states:
“We
the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.”
So
we can see in American republican - democracy (U.S.) the sovereign is the people
and not the government or the elected leaders of the government. So in order to be in rebellion one would
have to be in rebellion to the collective will “of the
people.”
The
fourth issue that must be confronted is whether seeking to change a law in a
republican - democracy where the People are the Sovereign constitutes a failure
to submit to the lawful authority? The answer to this question should be self-evident. If laws could never be changed by
popular will as then the Sovereign People would lose their sovereignty and the
system itself would be in rebellion to lawful authority (the will of the
people). Such a result or argument
would be asinine, i.e., to be a republican – democracy that is Christian you can
never change the laws because to change the laws you would be in rebellion to
authority but then you would no longer be a “republican – democracy.” People tacitly use this argument to say
that we can not change our immigration laws to make migrants who came to the
United States without a Visa legal as to do so would be a rebellion of lawful
authority. Bunk, in a republican -
democracy, lawful authority is what the people by their popular will as
reflected through their elected representatives say it is, no more no less. If the people and their representatives
change their mind they are free to do so. There is no argument based upon the Bible that would say that it is wrong
to change one’s mind unless of course it is contrary to the Word of
God.
With
respect to this issue it should be first noted that although the pejorative
phrases “Illegal Immigrants” versus
“Undocumented Workers” are thrown about to stir up emotions and rallying cries
for both sides of this debate the truth is not contained in either phrase. “Illegal Immigrant” is a commonly used
catch phrase to describe these people and most people mistakenly take this to
mean that they have committed a crime punishable by the criminal law for coming
to the United States without a proper Visa.
In
2005 legislation commonly known as the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal
Immigration Control Act of 2005 was introduced in Congress
which would have changed the
seriousness of the infraction from a civil to a criminal one, thus criminalizing
status of these persons. The
supporters of the legislation asserted that it is argued that living illegally
in the United States is civil infraction and needed to be criminalized. The legislation did not pass both houses
of Congress and never became the law of the United States. Therefore, when people start talking
about “illegality” of these persons immigration they are not talking about a
crime but something more on the order of failing to get a building permit before
remodeling ones home. Speeding
charges are generally classified as “civil” and not criminal.
Legal
definitions for crime and civil violations or infractions as well as the legal
concepts of “malum in se” and “malum prohibitum.”
crime
n. a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or
a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible
penalties. http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=399&bold=||||
A crime is an act that violates a political, religious, or moral command considered important in protecting the
interests of the State or the welfare of its citizens or subjects. The
word "crime" came from Latin crimen (genitive criminis), from the Latin root cernō and Greek κρινω = "I judge".
Originally it meant "charge (in law), guilt, accusation." In everyday usage, a crime is understood
as any act that violates a law.
Michigan
defines civil infraction (http://www.michiganprosecutor.org/Define.htm)
CIVIL
INFRACTION
· a non-criminal violation of a law
prosecuted by the State or a local government unit. A person cannot be sent to
jail for a civil infraction. The most common example is a traffic citation, like
speeding. The penalty for a civil infraction is payment of fines, costs, and
fees. For a traffic civil infraction, points may be added to the driving record.
A person can be found responsible for a civil infraction in one of four ways:
1. by
failing to respond to the citation on time; a default judgment will be entered;
in most cases, the person's driver's license will be suspended until the fines
& costs + a surcharge are paid;
2. by
admitting responsibility for the violation and paying the amount indicated on
the ticket;
3. after
an informal hearing;
4. after
a formal hearing.
malum in se
(mal-uhm
in say) adv. Latin referring to an act that is "wrong in itself," in its very
nature being illegal because it violates the natural, moral or public principles
of a civilized society. In criminal law it is one of the collection of crimes
which are traditional and not just created by statute, which are
"malum prohibitum."
Example: murder, rape, burglary and robbery are malum in se, while violations of the Securities and Exchange Act or most "white collar
crimes" are malum prohibitum.
See also: malum
prohibitum
malum prohibitum
(mal-uhm prohibit-uhm) adj. Latin meaning "wrong due to being
prohibited," which refers to crimes made so by statute, compared to crimes based
on English common law and obvious violations of society's standards which are
defined as malum in se. Statutory crimes include criminal violations of
regulatory acts, "white collar crimes" such as improper use of insider
information, issuance of stocks without a permit which are intentionally not
supported by real assets and tax avoidance.
See also: malum in se white collar crime
It
is legally clear that the act of being in the United States without a visa is
not a “crime” or “malum in se” but rather is a violation of a civil law and
“malum prohibitum.” When many of
our forefathers came to this country there was no visa requirement however now
there is. This shows us that the
act of coming to the United States without a visa is not inherently wrong as a
violation of natural, moral or public principles but rather is some thing that
can be, but is not always, prohibited; and therefore such an act under the
current law is a violation of a malum prohibitum by the migrant. To call one illegal under these
circumstances is akin to saying the same thing about someone who doesn’t mow his
grass, get building permits, wear his seat belt, etc.
Civil
Disobedience
Romans
13:5 states “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.” Indicating that we should follow higher power
(in the US the collective will of the people) so as not to incur the wrath
“power” but also for conscience sake. Why if we were to blindly follow power right or wrong would we be told
“for conscience sake?”
From
Probe Ministries (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/civildis.html):
“Francis
Schaeffer said in the Christian Manifesto that if there is never a case
in which a Christian would practice civil disobedience, then the state has
become Lord. He said, One either confesses that God is the final authority, or
one confesses that Caesar is Lord. The Bible clearly teaches that there are
times when a believer must disobey civil law so that he or she can obey God's
higher law.
In
the Old Testament there are a number of prominent examples of civil
disobedience. In Exodus 1 and 2, when Pharaoh commanded the Hebrew
midwives to kill all male Hebrew babies, they lied to Pharaoh and did not carry
out his command.
The
book of Daniel has a number of instructive examples. In Daniel 3, for example, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego
refused to bow down to the golden image and were cast into the fiery furnace. In Daniel 6 the commissioners and satraps had King Darius
make a decree that no one could make a petition to any god or man for thirty
days. Daniel nevertheless continued to pray to God three times a day and was
cast into the lion's den.
The
most dramatic example of civil disobedience in the New Testament can be found in Acts 4 and 5. When Peter and John were commanded not to
preach the gospel, their response was, "We ought to obey God rather than men. "
(Acts 5:29).
Notice
that in each of these examples there are at least two common elements. First,
there was a direct, specific conflict between God's law and man's law. Pharaoh
commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill male Hebrew babies. Nebuchadnezzar
commanded his subjects to bow before the golden image. King Darius ruled that no
one could pray. And, in the New Testament, the High Priest and the Council
forbade the apostles from proclaiming the gospel.
Second,
in choosing to obey God's higher law, believers paid the normal consequence for
disobedience. Although most of those previously cited escaped the consequence
through supernatural intervention, we know from biblical and secular history
that others paid for their disobedience with their lives.”
Other
New Testament Examples of Civil Disobedience
As
we will see, the New Testament contains examples of Godly believers deliberately
disobeying civil authorities on specific matters. In some cases, God even
directed people through angels to disobey an earthly authority or intervened
against authorities on their behalf. This was not anarchy, but obedience to a
higher authority.
At
the very beginning of the New Testament, we see God countering an order of the
King of Israel. King Herod told the Magi, "Go and make a careful search for the
child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship
him." But after the Magi found baby Jesus and gave their gifts, they were
"warned in a dream not to go back to Herod" and they "returned to their country
by another route." Apparently, God told them not to do what the King had
instructed. This was during a time when disobeying a King was a capital offense
(Mt 2:8, 12).
" And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.”
Again,
God in effect thwarts the plans of the King (Mt 2:13).
Since
we are considering how God thwarted a human ruler, let us go briefly to the end
of Jesus' life and see God doing it again. After Jesus' death, Pilate the
Governor of Israel instructed that Jesus' tomb be made secure by putting an
official seal on the stone and posting a guard. Two days later, an angel of the
Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat
on it (Mt 27:65-66; 28:2). It is clear God would do his work
regardless of any earthly king or governor's intent.
Analysis
Nu 15:15 One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD.
Acts 5:29 "We ought to obey God rather than men. "
The
argument based upon the single example of Romans 13 in this context clearly
falls under the weight of numerous scriptures showing how we are to treat the
strangers among us.
The
following passages are just a few that show us that we are to have one law and
to treat the stranger as we would Christ. I would not be surprised if the persons who take the “law and order”
approach would also be like the Pharisees and their approach to Christ. Ex 12:49 Ex 20:10 Ex 22:21 Ex 23:9 Ex 23:12 Le 16:29 Le 19:10 Le 19:33 Le 19:34 Le 23:22 Le 24:22 Le 25:6 Le 25:35 Nu 15:16 Nu 15:29 De 1:16 De 5:14 De 10:18 De 10:19 De 14:29 De 16:11 De 16:14 De 24:17 De 24:19 De 24:20 De 24:21 De
26:12 De 26:13 De 27:19 Mt 25:35 Mt 25:38 Mt 25:43 Mt 25:44
Those
taking the law and order (which law and which order?) approach that assert that
to be obedient to Governments means that migrants without visas should not be
allowed to be in the United States and that their status should not be changed
because to do otherwise would be a disobedience of lawful authority fail to
recognize that laws which make a distinction between migrants (even those
without visas) is in direct contravention of God’s command to have a single law
that applies for all including the strangers among us. It also denies the right of the
sovereign (people through representatives) to change the civil law. If Gods commands were to control the
proposed law would make no distinction between those who came here from other
countries and those who were native born. The law would not require strangers to have visas because that becomes a
distinction between strangers and native-born persons. It would not make a second class of
persons who have diminished rights to things such as fair pay (Note: provisions
in the act provide for the “worker visa” and for pay at levels under minimum
wages. Some commentators on the radio have even suggested that if allowed
citizenship these new citizens should be denied the constitutional right of
every citizen to vote). It would
not treat these persons different from those who came before them, meaning our
ancestors (not as an act of disobeying the prior law givers who placed no visa
requirements on entry to this country but as a violation of God’s command to
treat all the same and have one law). The act of creating a law that makes a distinction between the stranger
(i.e., requiring a visa or permanent resident status) and the citizen is
contrary to God’s clear command, although this is lost on many because they say
that the same law applies to both citizens and migrants. The fact is that it does not apply to
the citizen because he is already given a privileged status in that law by his
citizenship.
Anatole
France’s made the observation that, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids
the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and
to steal bread.”
Mark Rouleau
rouleau-law@insightbb.com