Yesterday, our moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow sent out an invitation to comment on the statement issued on behalf of the PC(USA) regarding the recent Arizona legislation known as SB1070. This was his status on facebook:
Bruce Reyes-Chow just had a wonderfully challenging conversation with a "younger than me" person about today's interactions about the PC(USA) immigration statement. So here you go, for those 30 and under only, what are YOUR thoughts on the statement, the interactions, etc. Over 30's try really hard to listen.
No matter how inundated I am with final papers and exams, there’s no way I could pass up such a delightful invitation to thank the church for their active role in speaking out against this legislation, and give a few reasons as to why I am against the law myself. Before I show my response to Bruce’s message, here’s a brief summary of the statement if you haven’t read it or don’t plan to read the whole thing (though I do encourage you to read it - it's a great statement!):
I. An immediate need exists in the country for immigration reform
a) SB1070 is characterized by bigotry, trauma and fear
b) We need action at the federal level
II. Churches see the pain the broken system causes; ripping families apart, children left behind
a) law puts Christian workers at risk who work with undocumented immigrants
b) we cannot stand by and allow this to happen
III. The law also jeopardizes the safety of immigrant communities, further pushing the invisible population of undocumented immigrants into the shadows which:
a) prevents people from reporting crimes
b) fosters a distrust of the law
c) hinders federal legislation dealing with immigration
IV. LEV 19: 33-34
a) IMMIGRATION REFORM PLEASE!
Here was my response, it’s not eloquent (facebook just isn’t as fancy as a blog and I was in a bit of an “in-the-moment-adrenaline-rush” after reading the statement) but it sums up a few points:
Bruce,
When I got my tattoo of the Presbyterian seal on my wrist my mom asked me "why couldn't you just have gotten a necklace?" and many people asked me "what if you don't always agree with your church?"
Well, there have been times since when I haven't exactly adored what the Presbyterian church has done, but there are times like these when the PC(USA) stands up and speaks out against injustices in the world that completely overwhelm any trivial disagreements I have with the church. This is EXACTLY where I see the living church in action in the world. The statement issued about SB1070 is a testament to the living church. I'm so glad my church took action and stated plain truths about the legislation.
My concentration, I hope, in the sociology PhD program I enter in the fall will be immigration and immigration reform. I've already studied the issue at length and legislation like this has all kinds of unintended consequences. The third paragraph in the statement, for example, discusses the distrust of law enforcement that already existed. This legislation will only augment the distrust and push the invisible population further into the shadows. This kind of legislation hinders federal investigations and further complicates our already broken system.
In practice, the legislation is a nightmare. If Javier (my husband – from Chile) and I want to go on a road trip to California, he'd have to bring his birth certificate? What papers would we need? How sensible is it for him to take all of his precious documents with him? Those documents need to be kept SAFELY at home in a fire-proof lock box, because they were hard enough to get in the first place. How full will the already inhumane detention centers be? How many more families will be split up?
In a perverse way, though, this legislation has brought to the forefront something this country desperately needs: immigration reform. There's no way congress can escape this issue now. Again, unintended consequences.
This was not a part of my original comment but I later pressed the point of how important it is that our church MADE such a statement. We are not the only denomination to issue a statement on immigration reform: the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America has issued a statement called “Toward Compassionate, Just and Wise Immigration Reform,” and the United Methodist Church is part of the Interfaith Immigration Coalition and works with groups to increase the religious diversity in the campaign toward immigration reform. What would we have the PC(USA) do – ignore the situation? Not stand up and make a statement? That’s just not our personality. We may not have a unified consensus – has that ever happened in our church? This is a time for action. I’m so proud of the PC(USA) for making this statement and joining the ranks of other denominations who have already become involved in the fight for comprehensive immigration reform.
What do you all think? We’ll take comments even if you are 30+ years old.
photo by: www.ryanrodrickbeiler.com, taken from Soujourners
Bishop Tutu with the TRUTH. Word.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/desmond-tutu/arizona----the-wrong-answ_b_557955.html
Apparently no one has read the law and democrats, such as Janice Hahn (LA City Councilwoman) used a typical leftist tactic; equating the people of Arizona with Adolph Hitler and those who wanted to continue slavery in the 1800s. Are you kidding me people? Are you? The law is in plain English; 17 pages that states clearly that if a person is detained by police during the regular course of duty, an officer if so inclined may ask for paperwork that determines the right of individual to be in the sovereign land of the United States of America. We are asked to provide paperwork all the time. I'm asked to show paperwork before getting on a plane. I'm asked to show paperwork if I want a drivers license. I'm asked to show paperwork if I'm pulled over by a police officer for a driving infraction. All US citizens are required to hold some form of ID on them. ALL US CITIZENS. Otherwise we are considered vagrants. Why should new immigrants not be held to the same standard? Why are we passively protecting the rights of people who have come to our country illegally? SB1070 is NOT characterized by bigotry, trauma and fear. It is characterized by the frustration Arizona has with the ignorance of those in federal government to know that job #1 is to protect this land from invaders, both foreign and domestic. I am ENTIRELY for LEGAL immigration into this country, but the mass flood of illegal immigration is absolutely killing this country. Employers of illegals are to blame. Our federal government is to blame. But, most of all our collective ignorance of the importance of sovereign borders is to blame. The framers of our Constitution understood this. It's high time that people in academia and our elected leaders understood it as well.
ReplyDeleteIs this a Christian perspective, ScoMudge? Where's the Christian perspective in what you say? What kind of theological argument can be made for this kind of thnking? Biblical hospitality to the stranger is not naive - it includes provisions for protecting the safety of the household - but this protection is focused not on "legality" but on harmful motives. From the very beginning of the Bible, the stranger/alien (the word is interchanged) is a potentially sacred presence in the community.
ReplyDeleteThe practice of extending hospitality to the stranger or guest has ancient roots within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Abraham, the “wandering Aramean” (Deut. 26:5) was dependent on hosts who were Canaanite and Egyptian, and was hosted by Melchizedek, king of Salem (Gen. 14). In Genesis 18, we are told that Abraham hosted three very significant strangers who informed Sarah she would bear a child late in life. As gērîm (sojourners) in Egypt, the people of Israel knew in no uncertain terms the importance of the host-guest relationship. It was a key to survival and became increasingly important in discerning and articulating the nature of faith. After the sojourn in Egypt, an ethic of hospitality developed within Israel, through which Israel’s experiences as guest informed their experience of themselves as hosts. This culminated in the well-known ethical mandate articulated in Deuteronomy 10:19, “You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” This ethic of hospitality became an important aspect of both social and household life.
The life of Jesus was a paradigm of hospitality. From his birth in a manger to his burial by Joseph of Arimathea, Jesus was dependent on the welcome of others, and was a guest of Simon Peter, Levi, Martha, Zacchaeus, as well as Pharisees and others left unnamed. Luke portrays Jesus pushing back against misuses of the rules of hospitality when his host seemed to be using the rules of hospitality to silence his voice (Luke 11:37-41). Often, as guest, Jesus changes roles and becomes the host of a conversation focused on discerning a new truth. Luke’s story of the Road to Emmaeus is paradigmatic of this host-guest reversal. (Luke 24:13-35) In that story Jesus the stranger is hosted and then in a startling moment of reversal and recognition becomes host (vs. 31).
From a biblical perspective it is very important to be certain that the stranger/alien, while tested for motives to do harm, is not tested for "strangerness" (if that is a word), i.e. deemed dangerous and "invader" to use your language, based only on nationality or difference. The Presbyterian Church (USA), in Christian conscience, supports a stance that is biblically rooted, and runs completely counter to your arguments.
John-what good is amnesty if the economy can't grow fast enough to provide the tax base needed to help such immigrants? And don't try framing this argument as a faithful vs. non faithful Christian debate. ScoMudge is using her God-given intellect to think freely and rationally about this problem. If you don't like the federal immigration law, so be it. Perhaps you want it changed. But to go against one state government's attempt to protect its citizens on the borders shows a lack of critical thinking on your part. I have no problem with legal immigration, but the amnesty you're suggesting is economically irresponsible and more importantly, unsustainable.
ReplyDelete