In 1783, George Washington proclaimed, “the bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions, whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges”. Rhetoric portraying America as a melting pot and refuge for those desiring freedom has echoed throughout our history; however, immigrants have rarely been accepted with open arms. The debate over the impact of immigrants on the economy is well documented, but unsettled. Restrictionists argue that immigrants rob native-born Americans of their jobs, and cost society through their dependence on public assistance. Other criticism surrounds the threat of a changed culture stemming from a general xenophobia which hopes to retain a homogenous national identity.
There’s a paradox in international law regarding immigration. The right of humans to freely leave any country for economic reasons and political refuge is guaranteed by the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. However, the declaration also recognizes that the “will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”, which establishes the framework allowing governments to decide who its citizens may be, as well as delegating control over their borders. Essentially, people have a right to leave their country, but no right to enter another.
The moral dimension of granting political or religious asylum is pitted against the economic welfare and nationalistic sentiments of countries in this debate. The moral dimensions of the debate would seem to discredit “xenophobic” fears of illegal immigration, but threats to national security must also be taken into account. The vast and numerous geographic channels that make it possible for people to be smuggled into the country also ferry drugs and weapons across our border. The conservative fear of an insecure border is legitimate; however, a desire to physically secure the border doesn’t discount the possibility of immigrants being accepted into the country via legal channels. Often these two views are at odds, but shouldn’t be. There are millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States, and more will enter the country illegally if policy allowing a broader entry of immigrants isn’t employed.
A large population of undocumented immigrants comprises the agricultural sector of America’s economy. In California, agricultural operations have relied on undocumented Mexican workers to provide produce at lower prices. It’s also argued that these jobs are so undesirable that Americans are unwilling to perform them. Undoubtedly, we’ve benefitted economically from this group of people, so it would seem that they’re due a debt of hospitality through the naturalization of citizenship. It’s also undeniable that these people drain public resources, but the only way these people will be able to contribute to society is if they’re accepted into it. The U.S. can’t support allowing entry to every person who desires it, but could improve the situation by amnestying current undocumented workers, and allowing more people into the country than the current quota system allows.
America wasn’t established for the preservation of a white/European nationalism, but as a sanctuary for the persecuted. George Washington dignified foreign peoples wishing to gain entry into America as “respectable strangers” worthy of sharing in our established rights. As Christians, we should be mindful of the conditions (economic, political, and religious) that lead immigrants to our borders, and weigh them against the costs of their entry into the country.
Leviticus 19:34
You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.