“A Migrant Syrian was my Father” (Deut 26:5)

Broadly speaking, advocates engaged in the contemporary debate surrounding US immigration and border control issues represent two camps divided over whether the determinative factors shaping policy involve protecting the interests of US citizens or meeting the needs of refugees fleeing poverty and violence. Proponents of the former viewpoint typically frame the question in terms of legality, while the other side usually invokes fundamental principles of morality or Christian charity. As is so often the case in such debates, the statements made by both sides in the debate – at least as the popular media depicts them – suffer from inaccuracy or over-simplicity.

It is important to remember that while religious people consider “thou shalt not kill” a divine mandate and most other people regard it as a universal principle of natural law or a primary axiom of the social contract, there is no corresponding “thou shalt not migrate” prohibition in either divine or natural law. Similarly, borders are political, not natural, boundaries. Modern nation states regulate borders and control immigration to protect against criminal enterprises, terrorists, and other threats to the common weal, and as a means of shaping the development of their economies and societies – all, ideally, in keeping with and as expressions of the values of the given society.

In an effort to contribute to a balanced consideration of how US immigration policy based on truths and morals might look, this entry will examine the dueling contentions with regard to whether they recognize reality while at the same time honoring Christian values.

Like the Speed Limit, “Legal” Immigration is Somewhat Arbitrary. The history of US immigration policy (the source for the information in this and the subsequent paragraph is https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies) illustrates the notion that immigration “law” expresses the sentiment of the nation at a particular moment. Humility requires that we remember that, in the earliest years of colonial and national existence, “immigrants” to North America all came either as invader-conquerors or against their will as chattel. The borders were largely open, regulated if at all, at the state level. Federal immigration law appeared on the books only after the Civil War. Policy in this era (Acts of 1881 and 1882) continued a general openness, excluding only certain classes of undesirables: criminals, persons with diminished capacity or disease, persons considered immoral (including polygamists), and, notably, Chinese people (“Chinese Exclusion Act” of 1885).  This predominantly liberal attitude toward immigration resulted in an influx of 14.5 million people into the US in the first two decades of the 20^th century, a number that represented a population increase of approximately 28% over the total population in 1900.  Legislation sought to restrict diminish these numbers by requiring immigrants to be literate in their native languages (1917), to hold a passport (1918 presidential order), and to be admitted to the heritages of the existing population (Acts of 1921 and 1924).

Once again, adjustments to immigration policy in the 1940’s and 1950’s responded to the concerns of the context, specifically WWII and the Cold War. A series of legislation enacted in 1940’s and 50’s opened immigration to refugees from the war and from behind the Iron Curtain and to war brides and fiancés. Similarly, Vietnam era policy included the establishment of the “Bracero Program” that regulated a temporary worker program for Mexican farm laborers and removed certain barriers to admission. The 1952 Code initiated the outlines of the immigration policy still in effect by removing the national origins quota system and emphasizing family reunification and the admission of skilled labor. The first general policy for the admission of refugees came in 1980. The immigration legislation enacted in 1990, still in effect, provides for the issuance of visas to three categories of immigrants: (1) family members of those already resident in the US, (2) individuals with skills needed by US employers, and (3) individuals who can contribute to diversity in the US population.

Historically, then, the US has been generally open to welcoming immigrants, although it has sometimes exhibited racial bias. In particular, immigration policy has expressed interests in excluding criminals, nurturing family unity, and meeting the economy’s needs for workers – skilled or otherwise. Fundamental, in any case, is the recognition that immigration policy is not rooted in some universal philosophical or theological principle. Instead, except for humanitarian provisions, it largely reflects purely pragmatic considerations.

to be continued