Previous segments of this discussion of US Immigration policy have focused on its history, current demographics, and economic considerations.  In sum, they have argued that the impression that the US faces the threat of an overwhelming, some would argue even destabilizing, influx of immigrants – by which most involved in the debate mean Latin-x immigrants – does not withstand scrutiny.

The debate also involves moral issues, however, essentially divisible into three areas: (a) the responsibility, morally and under international law, to offer protection to refugees seeking asylum because of legitimate threats to their lives or their freedom; (b) the responsibility to treat human beings seeking asylum, especially children, with decency and humanity; and (c) the responsibility to address the conditions that motivate people to leave their homes in search of refuge in the first place, a responsibility that includes acknowledging and, where possible, remedying the role that the US has played in creating those conditions. In fact, the current real, but largely manufactured, crisis along the southern border does not arise from “illegal” immigration. Instead, these moral factors constitute the core of the problem.

First, the US is a signatory to 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Their central principle, “non-refoulement,” prohibits returning refugees to their home countries to face the threats they have fled (www.unhcr.org/en-us/1951-refugee-convention.html).  Furthermore, it requires host countries to afford asylum seekers access to food, shelter, health care, and education, both after they have been granted asylum and during the period when their asylum claims are being adjudicated (www.unhcr.org/en-us/3b66c2aa10). Further, 8 U.S. Code 1158.a.1 “Authority to Apply for Asylum” states: “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title” (www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158). Clearly, then, it is not “illegal,” under either US or international law, to seek asylum. Furthermore, the path one takes to enter the country – whether at a designated port of entry or by crossing the border elsewhere – has no bearing on an individual’s right to claim asylum under US law. The rhetoric surrounding the current crisis at the southern border is, therefore, simply and blatantly false. By definition, individuals who come to the US to seek asylum are not “illegals.” Whether the grounds for their asylum claims are sufficient to meet the standards set in US law is a separate question for evaluation in the proper court.

With regard to this legal determination, sadly, the backlog of asylum cases up for review is a contributing factor to the situation at the border, today.  This backlog, itself, is a violation of US law. In January 2019, The New York Times reported that the average immigration case now lasts 578 days and asylum cases require an average of three years for resolution (www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/24/us/migrants-border-immigration-court.html). Yet, according to 8 U.S. Code 1158.d.5, the process of evaluating asylum claims “shall commence no later than 45 days after the date an application is filed” and “shall be completed within 180 days after the date an application is filed” (www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158). Arguably, building up immigration courts would do more to relieve the situation at the border than building a physical barrier ever could.

A prior moral question, however, regards the situation especially in the so-called Northern Triangle of countries in Central America that prompts so many to make the hazardous journey northward. Most flee drug gang violence, extreme poverty exacerbated by climate change, extortion, and corruption. Space does not permit a summary of the history of US-Latin American relations. Nonetheless, one can easily argue that US gun policy, US drug policy, and the long-standing practice of interfering in Latin American politics, often to depose or to assist in deposing democratically-elected governments in favor of rightist strong men (witness: Panama 1903; Guatemala 1954 – “Operation PBSUCCESS”; Dominican Republic 1916-24, 1963; Chile 1973; Nicaragua 1981-1990), have contributed significantly to the instability, poverty, corruption, and violence that characterize regions such as the Northern Triangle. Circumstances suggest, again, that the proper attention to the factors that motivate people to flee their homes would likely have a greater positive effect than denying them refuge in the US ever can have.

To this point, I have dealt with law, economics, demographics, and history – all of which indicate that the crisis at the southern border today does not result from the illegal acts of an “invasion” of undesirable Latin Americans.  I have advanced the argument from a public, secular perspective, namely that of “enlightened self-interest” and utilitarian ethics.

I want to conclude with a few observations, however, made from the standpoint of my Christian faith, observations that shift the focus from the refugees to Christians. The kingdom of God has no borders; its citizens include all ethnicities; it is the refuge of all who seek God’s comfort; it welcomes all. Whereas the message of the Bible with regard to ethical concerns is sometimes indirect (in vitro fertilization, taxation, and recycling come to mind), it is difficult to see how it could be clearer on the subject of the treatment of the poor and oppressed, especially refugees. From the Israelite confession citing the migrant status of Israel’s ancestors (Deut 26:5, cited above) to Jesus’ equation of whether one welcomes the hungry, naked, thirsty stranger – “the least of these” – with how one treats Jesus, himself (Matt 25:34-46), the Bible specifically, directly, and repeatedly states the central importance of taking care of people simply because God loves them. We show God’s steadfast love most especially when exercising such care for others requires personal sacrifice; it is not motivated by self-interest of any kind; it is having the mind of Christ.

To separate children from their parents as a deterrent against seeking refuge in the US is to treat them as objects, not as precious, impressionable, and beloved of God.  As we learned to sing in Sunday School:

Jesus loves the little children,

All the children of the world.

Red and yellow, black and white,

They are precious in his sight.

Jesus loves the little children of the world.