By Madeline Smart, Contributing Opinion
The conversation about immigration is a necessary one, despite it being “itchy” or “uncomfortable.” A good place to begin is in relationship around a table with the rudimentary assumption that Christians on both sides intend to be faithful to Scripture. The issue of immigration is more nuanced than either side would like to admit. As Christians, we have the obligation to wrestle thoughtfully and wisely and to act boldly in love, even when it would be easier not to.
The Kingdom of God is big enough to encompass diversity in political opinions. There are many different lenses Christians wear, but the perspective that should hold the most weight is that of Christ. This is the same Christ who “is our peace, who made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the wall of hostility.” Ephesians 2:14 is referring to Jews and Gentiles; however, the point still stands that our unity as those in Christ should transcend partisan lines.
Regarding Christian engagement with immigration, take the metaphor of leprosy. In the New Testament, there are numerous cases of Jesus healing those who were suffering with leprosy. This disease begins as a bacterial infection that affects the skin, leaves bumps and, if left untreated, can lead to deformities in appendages. Leprosy can progress unnoticeably and gradually over the course of years, leaving numbness from damaged nerve cells.
Although leprosy is a physical disease, there is a metaphorical significance behind Jesus’s actions. How often in the body of Christ are we numb to the pain that is affecting our members? How often does the initial, piercing sting of injustice fade into numbness over time? In the body of Christ, we should feel the pain of our fellow members, despite their legal status, as they too are stamped with the inherent dignity of creatures crafted in God’s image.
During Biola University’s racial reconciliation conference, Reverend Alexia Salvatierra, a leader in the Matthew 25 immigration movement, pastor, professor and activist gave a presentation entitled, “The Christian Response to the Immigration Crisis.” She shared the story of an immigrant living in the U.S. illegally, Pastor Noé Callias. Born in Guatemala, Callias was kidnapped at 8 years old and forced to take up membership in the same gang that stole him from his family. At age 13, he escaped but was unable to find his family.
Callias fled to be with extended family in the U.S. Here he became an agricultural worker, started a successful construction business, married his sweetheart Vicky, accepted Christ and became an Assemblies of God pastor in southern Los Angeles, California. During his years as a field worker in the U.S., he was deported to Mexico but returned illegally three times. In the words of Salvatierra, “He didn’t know about political asylum. He didn’t even know he could apply for it.”
There are three main ways one can enter the U.S. legally. There are “blood,” “sweat” and “tears” cases. “Blood” cases involve immediate family relations; “sweat” cases involve labor quotas set at a flat, annual rate of 5,000 people; and “tears” cases are appeals for political asylum. Under these definitions, Callias actually had three valid cases on which he could enter the U.S., despite only needing one. By blood, his wife is a U.S. citizen. By labor, he had started a successful business. By tears, he was an asylum-seeker from a government-like organization that made it impossible for him to return home to Guatemala.
However, he was not able to enter due to an existing deportation warrant. Under current immigration law, if someone has a standing deportation order, it must be legally removed before any type of case can be processed. Salvatierra reported an immigration lawyer once stating, “The removal of a deportation order is like the 20-year removal of a wisdom tooth. It can cost thousands of dollars, and there is no certainty.”
Additionally, it means he must wait decades before even having the possibility to even stand in line to immigrate legally. For people like Callias, there is no good option. He fell through one of the many cracks in the legal system of immigration law.
Systemic injustices at the Texas-Mexico border are abundant. Children are being separated from parents, asked to represent themselves in court (despite being anywhere from 3-18 years old and many not speaking English) and remain in what Dr. Tom Crisp, professor of Christian thought and philosophy at Biola University, referred to as “concentration camps.”
Despite the extremity of his statement, it emphasizes the gross atrocity at border detention facilities, where there are inadequate food and health provisions. According to the Pew Research Center, there are currently around 12 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. Six million never crossed the southern border illegally but overstayed visas — a problem, Salvatierra stated, “a wall would do little to fix.”
Another issue would be the discrepancy between “deferred deportation,” which under the Obama administration sought to deport dangerous, high-profile immigrants before low-priority immigrants. Under the Trump administration, rather than “deferred deportation,” there is a “zero tolerance” policy that makes all those living in the U.S. illegally the same priority for deportation. According to Salvatierra, this means that both Callias and those who have committed serious felonies have same priority for deportation.
Salvatierra also shared a heartbreaking statistic: “80 percent of evangelicals oppose immigration reform.” This may have to do with common misconceptions are that immigrants are dangerous and that immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy. Salvatierra claimed that these beliefs were partial truths as immigrants actually bring in more revenue than their expenses. Despite emergency room and educational costs to local levels of government, the aggregate change immigrants bring to the American economy is positive, due to their work and the taxes they contribute.
My proposal is that we first listen to the voices of those who are marginalized. Secondly, may we speak about immigration issues with love as the primary objective rather than “being right.” Most importantly, we need to consider how we can act in ways that actually bring life to the broken parts of our church body. Let’s not merely hear about their stories and return back to our blissfully unaware lives. The gospel demands that we do something.
