May 24, 2010 issue
A test of support for immigrants
Since Scripture calls us to welcome the alien, can we worship in a place where immigrants feel unwelcome? That is a question Mennonite Church USA leaders need to decide this year. They are asking for advice from across the church.
At issue is whether to withdraw MC USA’s 2013 convention from Phoenix in response to Arizona’s tough new immigration law. The law gives local authorities broad new powers to detain suspected undocumented immigrants.
Opponents of the law believe the eye of suspicion will fall on all Hispanics — longtime citizens and immigrants, documented and undocumented.
Passage of the law sparked protests and boycotts across the country. Corporations and organizations canceled events in Phoenix and Scottsdale, major convention destinations.
For MC USA, deciding the right thing to do about the 2013 convention should include standing with and learning from Hispanic Mennonites. Eighty percent of the the denomination’s Latino members were born outside the United States. The Arizona law “creates fear among people in some of our congregations,” wrote Ervin Stutzman, MC USA executive director, in a May 12 letter to conference leaders.
Latino leaders want to move the assembly to another state, said Yvonne Diaz, executive director of Iglesia Menonita Hispana (Hispanic Mennonite Church), an MC USA constituent group. Or, if the assembly remains in Phoenix, organizers should plan events that raise awareness of the unjust law and show support for immigrants, Diaz said.
The church has several months to decide, because financial penalties for withdrawing from contracts in Phoenix don’t increase until December, said Rachel Swartzendruber Miller, director of convention planning.
Glen Guyton, director of constituent resources, said that “to walk alongside the members of our Mennonite family of faith who are affected” by laws such as Arizona’s is even more important than deciding where to meet in 2013.
Scripture should guide our steps. Stutzman suggests that church members “study the scriptures that teach us how to relate to the foreigners in our midst.” We could begin with the Old Testament law: “The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt” (Lev. 19:34).
To recall being strangers in a strange land is good advice for Mennonites today. “Remember your history,” Diaz suggests to those who may be only a generation or two removed from the experience of being mistrusted outsiders who spoke German and hadn’t assimilated into American culture. Mennonites have known the suspicion and prejudice that often has marred immigrant life in the United States.
A 2003 MC USA resolution states: “We reject our country’s mistreatment of immigrants, repent of our silence and commit ourselves to act with and on behalf of our immigrant brothers and sisters, regardless of their legal status.”
To fulfill this statement, we must shape our churches around the biblical vision of hospitality for the stranger. Witnessing against an unjust law will show that we “love those who are aliens” (Deut. 10:19) as God commands.
Comments
-
In my opinion, the 2003 resolution, and you, are leaving out an important word that I see being part of this debate - "illegal." We are not talking about people who have followed the established rules, we are essentially talking about sinners, in that they have broken the law.
While I am fully for loving the sinner, we must not forget to not only not condone the sin but to condemn the sin. There are many sins by many people, myself included, in this country, but let's not try and sell a false bill of goods. No one - no law - has been made against legal immigration.
If we are a people of a third way, why are we not looking for more third ways? Much of the writing I have seen from Mennonites has been felt like it was a choice between Left and Right political views, while few voices have spoken to the failures on both sides of spectrum. No, the Right should not condone efforts to isolate the country from outsiders, but at the same time, the Left should not minimize the lives of law-abiding individuals, citizens or otherwise, by condoning the illegal actions of a few.
-
Well said.
-
David is right that we should not condone sin. But we do not look to the government to determine what counts as a sin. Instead, we look to our Scriptures. And the book of Acts is full of stories of the early Christians disobeying the law for the sake of obedience to the gospel of Jesus. For Christians, faithfulness sometimes means we break the law. "Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'" (Acts 5:29).
Regarding the freedom to cross borders: the early Anabaptists were quite comfortable ignoring the laws of the princes. The princes would draw up invisible boundaries (i.e., borders) around land and restrict Anabaptists from crossing those invisible lines. But the Anabaptists freely passed through the arbitrary borders established by the princes, quoting passages like Psalm 24: "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it, the world and all who live in it." Land belongs to God. Borders are a fiction created by people who pretend they have the power of God and enforce their power with the threat of violence.
-
Anyone who follows the news can see that this Arizona law has struck a chord among many who fear and despise immigrants. If Mennonite Church USA is going to make a witness, it cannot wait until 2013, then do a token march with banners around a convention hall or a seminar attended by a couple hundred people. The only thing that will catch the attention of these people is economic action. Pull the convention from Arizona now, and move it to someplace like L.A., which has taken a stand against this injustice.
-
The new Arizona law is the same basic law on immigration that has been in adopted for all the USA. Arizona has been the hardest hit of the states with the effects of illegal immigration due to the open nature of the borders alomg the Mexican-US border. This law has also been characterized as giving the law enforcement community in Arizona "new avenues " to stop persons that "look" Hispanic. Nothing new has been added to the law in Arizona. Very specific guidelines have been selected that are the same ones that have been approved by the Supreme Court regarding unlawfull stops due to "profiling". Anyone that is being stopped by law enforcement will be required to give a valid driver's license, proof of registration, and valid insurance credentials. This is the same information that any person regardless of status will need to make available to law enforcement.
If I was to travel to any foreign country I would be required to have the proper documents on my person at all times to prove my reasons for being in that country. Why should we not expect the same from persons from another country to abide by the laws set forth by our own government? If we disagree with these laws, let's work as a church to change them, not flaunt our support of those who are willfully breaking them with no regard for established lawful precedence.
I beleive we as a church need to keep our convention in Phoenix in 2013 and give a witness to both our desire to be good citizens of our country and yet speak out to the need for meaningful immigration reform, not just political posturing. -
Lev. 19:33-34: And if a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not vex him. But the stranger who dwells with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God. Deut: 10:19: Love ye therefore the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Now the meaning in context: Pertains to a Gentile who had willingly comes under the Covenant of Abraham. A proselyte was to be treated exactly as another Jew. Also, the strangers were expected to obey all the laws of Israel and not bring in their evil idols and worship. Rehab and Ruth were examples of the meaning of these two verses. Your people shall be my people and your God shall be my God.
Likewise, immigrants to the US should be expected to enter legally, respect our laws and learn English. These verses have nothing to do with the flawed Social Justice theology of the Religious Left today.
Arizona’s new immigration law is not as tough as the existing federal immigration law which is not being enforced. The Arizona law does not give local authorities broad new powers to detain suspected illegal immigrants as Editor Schrag suggests. In fact it is more restrictive in power than the federal law which was upheld by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. Perhaps it is too much to expect AG Holder, Homeland Sec. Napolitano and others to read Arizona law before criticizing it. If our cabinet members and law makers are unable to read a 15 page +(-) Arizona document, then should they really be expected to read the 2000+ page Healthcare legislation before voting on it?
There is nothing unjust with a state law that supports the protection of the taxpaying citizens from illegal invaders who rape, kidnap, murder and steal? To Editor Schrag, Ervin Stutzman and all like minded people, I ask you, do you leave all your house and church exit doors open day and night and the entrance light on to welcome anyone who wants to come in? What this editorial says, MC USA wants the taxpaying citizens of Arizona to do what members of the Church are unwilling to do themselves. It is healthcare all over again, MC USA wants others to do what they, as a church, refused to do themselves.
It is a shame for President Obama to ignore the many requests from Gov. Brewer for assistance in dealing with the Arizona immigration problem and then welcome and embrace the president of Mexico with a state dinner and to a joint session of congress and then both trash the taxpaying citizens of Arizona. This is another example of Obama violating this oath of office. Perhaps Editor Schrag should compare Mexico immigration laws with US law and give MWR readers a report. That would be interesting.
-
The Arizona law will promote witchhunts. It authorizes people to sue the police if they think the police are not aggressive enough in harassing Hispanics. Legal Hispanic citizens and residents are physically indistinguishable from those here illegally. You cannot catch the illegal ones without also making legal ones prove their right to be here, again and again. Actually crime rates in Arizona have been declining the last couple of decades. Supporters of this law would have you believe that illegal immigrants are making the crime rate soar, because they need a convenient scapegoat. When times get tough, it is very tempting and convenient to select an unpopular minority group and blame them for all that is ill in the society. That's what's happening.
-
No, actually you don't need to have proof of citizenship on your person at all times when traveling in most countries that Americans commonly visit, including Mexico. The better thing is to leave it at the hotel or home where you are staying. Passports are shown when entering or leaving a country, for certain financial transactions, for boarding a plane, or for checking into a hotel. There is already enough passport theft without exposing your passport to every pickpocket in every public place.
-
Dale, when you are through with making up motives and arguments for those with whom you disagree, then maybe there is reason for discussion.
One other observation. With the exception of references to Mennonites, both in general and in specific examples including Schrag and Stutzman, your arguments are almost verbatim from the Limbaugh show this past week. I have little interest in arguing with comedians. The only shame of it, then as now, is that this "comedy" has real victims.
-
I have now read the law in detail. It states: "Smuggling of human beings" means the transportation, procurement of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law."
This means that if you give an illegal alien a ride to church you can be charged with "smuggling of human beings", a Class 4 felony.
I cannot imagine that Mennonite Church USA is dithering about moving the convention out of a state that is hostile to everything we should be standing for. If the convention is held in such a state, I will personally not attend, and will urge my church and youth group to stay away.
-
Dave Jesus was on the cross between two thieves. One he spoke to and assured him he would join Jesus in Paradise. The other thief told Jesus if he was truly the Christ, he should get them both down off the cross. Jesus never responded to him about his current situation or about his eternal destiny. Jesus had opportunity to free them from the cross and completely heal them. To do so would have violated civil law and he was not authorized to do that. Jesus always respected civil law. If Jesus respected civil law in the matter of life and death, who are we to promote disobedience? If your civil disobedience is Biblical in the USA, it should also be Biblical in other countries. Try it in Mexico and Iran and see how you fare. I think there are three hikers in Iran prison that inadvertantly crossed the border.
-
Dale, here is the thing. We are not talking about Mexico or Iran. We are talking about the United States. That's a little like saying, if you get caught cheating on homework, arguing "Well, Billy and Tom got caught cheating on the last exam." We are upholding our ideals. Our freedoms. Not Iran's or Mexico's.
By the way, specific examples for Mexico? I know it is easy, as I have found in my experiment with listening to right wing radio this past week, to make all sorts of claims about migration harshness in Mexico. But all week I did not hear any examples.
Dale, no one is arguing that undocumented immigration is legal, or that it ought to be treated as the norm. This works to harm everyone involved. But perhaps our efforts at addressing the problem should not focus on the most powerless in the chain of illegal migration. Or lead to the problems that Dave mentions points out.
Undocumented workers risk life and limb to get across the desert, or travel in vehicles jammed way over capacity to face often substandard working conditions and wages at their destinations. If many states offer them legal recourse, their undocumented status makes them afraid to seek such recompense. In other cases, migrant labor performs jobs that others are not willing to.
Meanwhile, you have businesses that are only too willing to exploit undocumented workers, paying them wages well under what they would pay documented or American workers. Sure, this gets us cheaper produce, meat, and other products, but this is not legal, either.
You have been waiting for a liberal proposal, so here it is. Make it easy to get documented status.
1) Remove the quotas and allow anyone in, so long that they have a job waiting for them at the other end. Allow a period of transition so that those presently in the United States can apply for documentation.
2) Meanwhile, the US and Mexico should share intelligence regarding drug trafficking so that those who are involved with such activity are excluded from the process. If we can separate the act of crossing borders from involvement in other sorts of crime, then I would see no problem in stepping up enforcement. Presently, this is not possible.
3) Establish an expedited naturalization process for those "illegal immigrants" who came to the United States with their parents as minors. This particular group of illegals often faces the worst ordeal. They came with their parents, without much choice on their part. They grew up in the United States and have connections here, so Mexico is no longer home to them. At the same time, their lack of US documentation severely limits their opportunities.
3) Stringently enforce workplace safety and wage standards. Make sure that companies do not compensate migrant workers unfairly. Make it easy for employers to bring in work if needed, but make it clear that migrant workers are not a work-around to avoid American labor standards.
Such a proposal should treat workers with dignity, ensure fair treatment for all, and even enhance our ability to secure our borders by enabling us to concentrate resources on the real troublemakers.
Now, Dale, you offer the example of Christ between two thieves. I would offer the example of Christ being asked to participate in stoning an adulterous woman. He considered the punishment to be unjust, so he refused. Instead, he challenged whoever was without sin to cast the first stone.
By not holding the convention in Arizona, we would be refusing to participate in an unjust situation by refusing to pay the sales taxes or contribute to the income taxes that fund it.
-
JPR, first Jesus hung between two thieves. That was a civil government issue which Jesus respected. Jesus did not deny the stoning of the woman, he simply said He who is without sin cast the first stone. This was not a civil issue. Both situations are quite plain, sorry you missed them.
BTW, why limit your social justice theology to US only and not Iran, Mexico and other countries where terrorism against law abiding citizens is practiced?
Also, have you started opening all your house entrance doors day and night as an invitation to all the illegal immigrants and other needy people as you expect taxpaying citizens of Arizona?
-
JPR's ideas are excellent, though probably not realistic in today's political climate in the U.S. Here is a plan that I think could work in dealing with people currently in the country illegally.
1) Allow them to plead guilty to illegal entry and pay a significant fine. This answers the issue of "amnesty" that has become a rallying cry of so many.
2) Check their police record. If it is clean, issue a work permit valid for a period of years. During the time of that work permit, they would have the right to seek employment.
3) If they become involved in any criminal activity during the time of the work permit, revoke it, assess whatever penalties fit the crime, and deport them.
4) At the end of the validity of the work permit, they would have the opportunity to apply for citizenship, to renew the permit, or to return home.
5) If a person with a work permit is unable to find work or other means of support, such as from family, friends or church, he or she would need to return home; they would not be eligible for unemployment or welfare.
I would like to see more people opposing the current mania from the conservative side. What's happening in Arizona is vastly increasing the power of the state, which is something conservatives traditionally oppose. Let's not let paranoia and hostility to the outsider affect our basic freedoms.
My own congregation has a close relationship with a Hispanic church. I have no way to know if any of its congregants are in the country illegally. What if I wanted to offer a ride to a couple from that congregation to the convention in 2013? I would need to either a) risk committing a human trafficking felony; b) turn into a document inspector and try to establish their legal residence; or c) decide not to invite them.
Holding our convention in Arizona is absolutely contrary to any sense of being a missional church. Part of our body is unwelcome. It would be like holding our convention in a whites only hotel in Alabama in the 1950s.
-
Dale, no I have not been opening my doors. However, I have tried to be helpful to my needy neighbors when asked. Including offering them odd jobs in exchange for cash. I would not support theft, and neither would many illegal immigrants. Again, we need to de-link the one from the other. And Dale, once again. Please refrain from suggesting ludicrous positions for the other side to take. I am capable of making my own arguments.
That said, yes illegal immigrants are acting unlawfully. But so are the employers that take advantage of them.
I limit my social justice arguments to the United States and not Iran or Mexico because I am an American. I wish that Iran would display better respect of human rights and better respect for its neighbors, but I am not Iranian. I am American. Sure I wish my neighbor would mow his yard or paint his fence. But is that a good excuse for me to let my yard get out of hand? Using Iran's bad behavior as an example to justify our own is silly and beside the point. I think you know this.
I agree that Jesus did not forbid the woman's execution. But he refused to participate in it. Just as we should refuse to spend money in Arizona to support flawed policies. We aren't forbidding Arizona from doing anything. Merely saying that we will not pay for it. Dale, why is the Bible for literal interpretation only when it suits your needs?
Dave-I like your proposal.
-
The Apostle Paul writes to Timothy in II Timothy 2:15 the following: “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth,” In this verse is an indirect warning to those who would wrongly divide the word of truth as to give it a meaning that is misleading. The reference in this editorial to Lev. 19:34 and Deut 10:19 to support immigration social justice theology of the religious left is very misleading. In a previous comment on this editorial, I have given the proper meaning to these two verses and confirmed by two other ordained men one a MC USA Mennonite
-
Dale, here is the problem. We have two sides to this issue, and both are firmly convinced that the other side "would wrongly divide the word of truth as to give it a meaning that is misleading."
To be honest, I see much of this problem in the interpretation you present. Now, I try to view you as dialoguing in good faith, but statements such as these make it exceedingly difficult. You apparently see no good faith in your opponents and see fit to set up unrealistic scenarios that they would surely support. This extends neither grace nor respect on which a good faith dialogue can be built.
-
I find these comments interesting after 17 days in Nazareth, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem and seeing the illegal Israeli settlements on many hills in the West Bank.
I am uncomfortable with the references to Lev. 19:34 and Deut. 10:19. The context of Lev. 19 is various laws, including "Do not plant your fields with two kinds of seeds" and "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material".(v. 19). The chapter ends with "Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord."
One thing I read while gone was the illustration of Jacob's dream and the ladder resting on the earth and reaching to heaven. That was contrasted with the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus like a dove. The point being made is so simple. The OT focuses on land and the peoples of the land and the NT focuses upon Christ and the people of Christ. I need time to study this further, but I wonder if this might influence our interpretation of the Bible and the implications of Phoenix.
-
It is sad to see the many arguments and discussions around who is at fault in this situations. I thinks it is pretty clear as to the gov't's do's and don'ts. I see only that we should be working closely with our brothers and sisters in AZ as to how best we can help them in this journey through which I believe to be an unjust law. I personally agree with JPR and don't want to help the state of AZ fund their difficult situation.
-
Just some thoughts to think about - as this is not black and white
The hotels, restaurants, convention hall, and transportation that is used by Convention go'ers... who are the employees that work and benefit from these companies... usually minority workers.
Do the hotel owners, restaurant owners hold seats in AZ's congress/senate? They may have influence to some degree, but most likely don't have very much influence... are you hurting them or the government of AZ, by pulling out?
Side note, yesterday I read an article in the front page of the Franconia Conference newsletter Spring 2010 edition that just came out... it mentioned "Obama" 4 time in the article. I am starting to feel like unless "Democrat" is on your voter card, there is very little room left in Mennonite USA for you.
I am not a huge fan of either policial "side" but I am sad to see Mennonite USA and local conferences taking a side.
Comment on the article A test of support for immigrants
The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download
Download a free PDF showing the populations of
Mennonite groups and other Anabaptists.
