I'm committed to my immigrant neighbor. If he's here in violation of our laws, I'm committed to encouraging and helping him to go home. Laws like the ones recently passed in Arizona and Alabama are part of that.
If he's here in accord with our laws, I'm committed to helping him adjust and assimilate.
Enforcement, rationalization of the INS system, assimilation. There's a pledge for you.
Actually, there have been laws regulating immigration from the very beginning of the European colonies on these shores. They tended to be light, hard to enforce, and frequently ignored, but they were there.
By the middle of the 19th century, as patterns of immigration changed and more of those immigrants came from southern and eastern Europe, the laws changed, becoming more restrictive.
It is a fact that many of those laws were racist - not against Blacks or Hispanics, but against Slavs, Italians, Irish, Jews and most especially Chinese (cf. American Passage). From the time of the U.S. Civil War and running through the 1950s, there were also close connections between immigration restrictions and the eugenics movement.
That said, there is a distinctive American culture that is worth preserving, and far more people want to come into the U.S. at a rate much faster than we can effectively assimilate.
What is more, illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. We see the poor immigrant, but that poor immigrant undersells the local youth on the labor market leading to things like 50% unemployment for Black teenagers in Washington, D.C. and, while it is too often and too simply (and falsely) attributed to some ill-defined racist power structure, immigration is a factor. There are also the social services used by many of these immigrants that amount to a theft from taxpayers. To further avoid the law, there are issues of identity theft, forged papers, hidden papers, dangerous drivers who have not been properly trained for our roads and vehicles - not to mention the ability to exploit the fear of deportation and/or prison employers have been known to use against illegal immigrant employees.
I will grant that U.S. immigration laws are hosed - byzantine, burdensome and ineffective. That doesn't mean we should have unrestricted immigration or that we should reward those who have broken our laws in order to steal jobs, identities, and tax dollars.
So no, I won't be signing this pledge. It will do little more than perpetuate the problem. I'm more interested in finding possible solutions.
I didn't see anything that specified "rationalization" - reform, yes, but that can mean numerous things. I'm not sure that what the pledge envisions as "reform" is what I would call "rationalization". By "rationalization" I mean clear rules for who's in and who's not, evenly applied, and those who don't meet the "who's in" criteria are quickly shooed home - decisions are clear, timely, and as objective as possible with as little time as possible hanging about wondering what the answer will be. If somebody wants to appeal a decision, they may do so from their home country, not here and the burden of proof is on those who want to show us they meet the "who's in" criteria, not the other way 'round just as I have to prove I'm elligible for a Drivers' license instead of government having to prove I'm not.
I did know that "enforcement" was point 5 - enforcement "consistent with humanitarian values". Would you consider the recent Arizona law to require law enforcement to check the immigrant status of people arrested/pulled over for some other violation of the law to be "consistent with humanitarian values"? Judging from other stuff written on the OSJ site and by people connected with OSJ at the time Arizona's law was passed, I seriously doubt it. But enforcement that doesn't check their immigration status or actually deport people - even if it means breaking up families (and there is no possible criteria for immigration that will not mean in some instance that one family member is allowed in and another is excluded) - is no enforcement.
But then there's amnesty (point 2 - yeah, "rigorous criteria" which are unspecified and pretty much any rigorous criteria imaginable would conflict with point 1 about reform, besides being grossly unfair to those who have followed the legal process); guest workers is point 3 (why do we need unskilled guest workers when we have several millions of our own citizens unemployed?); and point 4 is welfare for foreigners who stay foreigners - in their own countries, not foreigners who come here to become Americans - because we can see how well government welfare transfer payments have worked here.
So, as I understand what is being pledged, we are to "advocate" reform (not rationalization), amnesty after rigourous criteria that don't actually bother anybody, guest-workers, foreign aid (which is largely ineffective, serving mostly to prop up corrupt, oppressive governments), and humane enforcement which is to say enforcement that doesn't inconvenience anyone.
Now, answer me this... what makes this political program more compatible with the biblical injunction to care for your neighbor and "the alien among you" than others (such as one that doesn't include points 2-4)? Why is the church specifying this political program - or any political program - rather than simply the biblical principle? Do we not trust our members to have the conscience, intelligence, compassion, or initiative to apply the principles without such specificity?
I think the first problem is the assertion of a "right to apply". While people may ask for whatever they wish to ask for, and often do, that does not mean either that they have a right to make the request. It's like saying, "people have a right to ask for chocolate syrup". It's incongruous - makes no sense - to describe the behavior as a "right". The article of the Constitution you site merely indicates an assumption on the part of the framers that people wouldask to become citizens.
The fact that people will ask also does not compel any particular answer. I could freely apply to my mother to have ice cream instead of broccoli. She doesn't have to grant my application and, to my knowledge, never did.
The article, then, directs Congress to decide how to answer those requests, but to devise an answer that is "uniform" - that is, consistent and consistently applied. A blanket "no" would meet that requirement. Whether we think that's the best answer or what of the various forms of "maybe" or "yes" we prefer, is immaterial as far as the Constitution is concerned. Only that Congress have a rule, and that it be "uniform".
"When I work on advocacy for this issue I’m not concerned about the Board of Trustees or the Denominational Offices. I’m concerned about honoring the various Christians who put the immigration report together and in doing so requested that the whole denomination help them in working for the good of our immigrant neighbors. In my computer there are dozens and dozens of stories from CRC members who tried and failed to get documentation for immigrants and then saw families broken apart or new friends waiting for decades to enter. For every one of those stories there are dozens more I haven’t had time to hear. This isn’t a debate about the semantics of the U.S. constitution this is an effort to change laws that are ruining people’s lives. U.S. laws do not change until enough people ask. This is a justice effort born out of scripture, relationships, compassion, and a desire to defend the cause of those who are most vulnerable."
1. The U.S. Constitution is one of our laws - the foundational one. It is usual when people claim a matter is mere "semantics" that they've got no real answer to the question put before them and would rather dismiss the whole matter. But we cannot, precisely because that's the law the rest are supposed to be based on. Besides, you brought it up and now you don't want to talk about it?
2. The laws are not ruining people's lives. Ignoring the laws, acting in violation of that law, willfully trespassing in our country and stealing from our citizens - stealing jobs, social services, medical care, and more to the point where hundreds of ERs have closed down, minority youth unemployment approaches 50%, and our national debt is immense. While illegal immigrants are not solely responsible for these ills, they contribute greatly to them. A guy who gets arrested for robbing a bank is not having his life ruined by the law against robbing banks. His life is ruined because he violated the law. A guy who breaks into somebody else's house and gets shot by the homeowner isn't dead because the homeowner defended himself but because he attacked the homeowner. So somebody who breaks the law to come here, settles, gets a job, brought kids with him who grow up knowing nothing of the home country, then gets caught - the law isn't what caused his problem. He did. It's not like he didn't know he was breaking the law.
3. I agree the U.S. should alter its laws regarding immigration. But those laws will also then have to be enforced. We want to make sure (a) that those new laws aren't worse than the ones we have; and (b) that they are so enforced. But enforcing those laws will also and inevitably have a deleterious effect on those persons who choose to ignore them. Those law-breakers will be vulnerable, too. What will you advocate then? Changing the laws back?
4. Have you any stories on your computer about those who lost loved ones because the ER they would have used is shut down and the closest one is now miles away? Have you any stories on your computer about young Black men who cannot find a job because they can't speak Spanish and so can't communicate with the illegals working there? Do you have any stories on your computer about people killed by illegal immigrants driving without the necessary skills or training on our highways? Pick your set of sob stories and I can find you others. The difference is, the people harmed in mine are legally entitled to be here and fellow citizens.
I remember when age and experience were what was wanted at Synod....
I wonder, this fascination with what is young and new, this participation in the cultural adoration of youth - at what point does it cross the 5th commandment?
I realize that's an impertinent question in this particular context, but I figured the youth might appreciate a bit of impertinence from an old f&rt.
Oh, yes. I am aware of Paul's charge to Timothy to not let anyone look down on him because he is young. I'm also aware that, in the case of Jacob and Esau, the elder served the y ounger. Joseph also was not the eldest of Jacob's sons. But I know, too, that wisdom is more often than not bedecked with the hoary frost of years and hard experience.
Amy - well said and point taken. I do, frankly, appreciate it when the youth question and challenge me because I relish the opportunity to explain how I have come to the conclusions I hold. I also know that the Lord can, and more often than us old folks like to think, does speak to his people through the mouths of those young men who dream dreams and those young women who prophesy.
I also think it is vital for those who lead to remember the reason for leading is to serve the led.
What I see happening, though, is the fragmentation of the church into interest groups - young, old, men, women, this race, that race, this this, that that. It turns what is supposed to be a family into a political institutions with various factions jockeying for position.
For instance, what matters is not the perspective, the interest, the biblical knowledge, the movement of the Spirit, or their relationships within the family of God, but simply that these advisors are "youth". Yet even on that score, they cannot legitimately be expected to speak for "youth" as a class or interest group - they were, after all, selected by the Board of Trustees, not other young people. Since they are not truly representatives of the designated interest group, nor are they selected by their respective churches or classes where they might be known and respected, they come to Synod wholly disconnected from the family and merely as "youth". It's almost as if Synod thinks 18-year-olds are interchangeable and all think alike.
Also implicit in this process is the assumption that elders and pastors who are delegated from the family - their respective classes - are ignorant of and unable to speak intelligibly about (or on behalf of) youth, some of whom are their own children or grandchildren.
I understand the fear that motivates the act - young people are not staying within the CRC as they graduate and move on. How do we fix that? Let's ask the youth!
Reasonable, as far as it goes, but at what point do we draw back from the brink? Where is that line between an appropriate effort to address the Lord as a whole family called into his presence, consulting the perspectives and opinions of all his children, and a fragmentation that denies the respect and honor due those who have gone before?
I'm not sure where that line is, but the rationale advanced officially for having youth advisors at Synod, and then for giving them voting privileges or the privilege of the floor, causes me to wonder if perhaps we may have crossed it.
I found it intriguing - and the comparison of an ordained/educated clergy to a guild struck me as apt.
The effect of this trend on what I do as a pastor is not clear to me, but it strikes me that it changes my task more to one of a guide through the maze of information and opinions out there rather than as a source authority myself. I'm still ruminating on it, which is one of the reasons I thought I'd toss it out there for others to consider.
I have read the confession. It is vague and ambiguous on key points. Lacking clarity, it is open to misunderstanding and misuse. It also is highly contextualized to conditions in South Africa and of limited value in a North American context.
To the extent that it boldly states racism is wrong, I agree with it, but is there anyone out there saying racism is right? Did I miss something, or is there a pastor or classis somewhere advocating racism who needs to be straightened out? Is there a societal approval of racism that needs to be countered in North America? I'm not saying there aren't racists or that people don't unwittingly make racist judgments, only that nobody of any significance in the larger culture or in the church is denying that this is wrong or sinful - not in North America, anyway.
That leaves the confession's prescription for overcoming racism and I'm not sure that can be easily transplanted from South Africa to North America given our respective histories. To the extent American society is still segregated, it is voluntarily so, and that requires a very different approach than South Africa does.
In sum, it's vague and open to abuse, it is unnecessary, and it's a solution to the wrong problem.
JH - None of what you've said, really challenges my points with regard to the Belhar and its adoption as a confession on par with the Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort.
In regards to your last question - would adopting the Belhar shake us out of slow motion - the answer is "no." If encouraging, arguing, goading, motivating, inspiring from the Bible doesn't do this, the Belhar won't, either. And looking at the rather scant attention paid at present to the other creeds of the CRC, I have a hard time imagining that much more attention would be paid to this one.
And given the Belhar's vagueness on other points, it is potentially dangerous in its openness to abuse. If you would like my specific objections to statements in the Belhar, I would be happy to provide them.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
I'm committed to my immigrant neighbor. If he's here in violation of our laws, I'm committed to encouraging and helping him to go home. Laws like the ones recently passed in Arizona and Alabama are part of that.
If he's here in accord with our laws, I'm committed to helping him adjust and assimilate.
Enforcement, rationalization of the INS system, assimilation. There's a pledge for you.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Actually, there have been laws regulating immigration from the very beginning of the European colonies on these shores. They tended to be light, hard to enforce, and frequently ignored, but they were there.
By the middle of the 19th century, as patterns of immigration changed and more of those immigrants came from southern and eastern Europe, the laws changed, becoming more restrictive.
It is a fact that many of those laws were racist - not against Blacks or Hispanics, but against Slavs, Italians, Irish, Jews and most especially Chinese (cf. American Passage). From the time of the U.S. Civil War and running through the 1950s, there were also close connections between immigration restrictions and the eugenics movement.
That said, there is a distinctive American culture that is worth preserving, and far more people want to come into the U.S. at a rate much faster than we can effectively assimilate.
What is more, illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. We see the poor immigrant, but that poor immigrant undersells the local youth on the labor market leading to things like 50% unemployment for Black teenagers in Washington, D.C. and, while it is too often and too simply (and falsely) attributed to some ill-defined racist power structure, immigration is a factor. There are also the social services used by many of these immigrants that amount to a theft from taxpayers. To further avoid the law, there are issues of identity theft, forged papers, hidden papers, dangerous drivers who have not been properly trained for our roads and vehicles - not to mention the ability to exploit the fear of deportation and/or prison employers have been known to use against illegal immigrant employees.
I will grant that U.S. immigration laws are hosed - byzantine, burdensome and ineffective. That doesn't mean we should have unrestricted immigration or that we should reward those who have broken our laws in order to steal jobs, identities, and tax dollars.
So no, I won't be signing this pledge. It will do little more than perpetuate the problem. I'm more interested in finding possible solutions.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris V. E. -
I didn't see anything that specified "rationalization" - reform, yes, but that can mean numerous things. I'm not sure that what the pledge envisions as "reform" is what I would call "rationalization". By "rationalization" I mean clear rules for who's in and who's not, evenly applied, and those who don't meet the "who's in" criteria are quickly shooed home - decisions are clear, timely, and as objective as possible with as little time as possible hanging about wondering what the answer will be. If somebody wants to appeal a decision, they may do so from their home country, not here and the burden of proof is on those who want to show us they meet the "who's in" criteria, not the other way 'round just as I have to prove I'm elligible for a Drivers' license instead of government having to prove I'm not.
I did know that "enforcement" was point 5 - enforcement "consistent with humanitarian values". Would you consider the recent Arizona law to require law enforcement to check the immigrant status of people arrested/pulled over for some other violation of the law to be "consistent with humanitarian values"? Judging from other stuff written on the OSJ site and by people connected with OSJ at the time Arizona's law was passed, I seriously doubt it. But enforcement that doesn't check their immigration status or actually deport people - even if it means breaking up families (and there is no possible criteria for immigration that will not mean in some instance that one family member is allowed in and another is excluded) - is no enforcement.
But then there's amnesty (point 2 - yeah, "rigorous criteria" which are unspecified and pretty much any rigorous criteria imaginable would conflict with point 1 about reform, besides being grossly unfair to those who have followed the legal process); guest workers is point 3 (why do we need unskilled guest workers when we have several millions of our own citizens unemployed?); and point 4 is welfare for foreigners who stay foreigners - in their own countries, not foreigners who come here to become Americans - because we can see how well government welfare transfer payments have worked here.
So, as I understand what is being pledged, we are to "advocate" reform (not rationalization), amnesty after rigourous criteria that don't actually bother anybody, guest-workers, foreign aid (which is largely ineffective, serving mostly to prop up corrupt, oppressive governments), and humane enforcement which is to say enforcement that doesn't inconvenience anyone.
Now, answer me this... what makes this political program more compatible with the biblical injunction to care for your neighbor and "the alien among you" than others (such as one that doesn't include points 2-4)? Why is the church specifying this political program - or any political program - rather than simply the biblical principle? Do we not trust our members to have the conscience, intelligence, compassion, or initiative to apply the principles without such specificity?
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris V. E. -
I think the first problem is the assertion of a "right to apply". While people may ask for whatever they wish to ask for, and often do, that does not mean either that they have a right to make the request. It's like saying, "people have a right to ask for chocolate syrup". It's incongruous - makes no sense - to describe the behavior as a "right". The article of the Constitution you site merely indicates an assumption on the part of the framers that people would ask to become citizens.
The fact that people will ask also does not compel any particular answer. I could freely apply to my mother to have ice cream instead of broccoli. She doesn't have to grant my application and, to my knowledge, never did.
The article, then, directs Congress to decide how to answer those requests, but to devise an answer that is "uniform" - that is, consistent and consistently applied. A blanket "no" would meet that requirement. Whether we think that's the best answer or what of the various forms of "maybe" or "yes" we prefer, is immaterial as far as the Constitution is concerned. Only that Congress have a rule, and that it be "uniform".
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris V.E.-
I find this paragraph in your answer telling...
"When I work on advocacy for this issue I’m not concerned about the Board of Trustees or the Denominational Offices. I’m concerned about honoring the various Christians who put the immigration report together and in doing so requested that the whole denomination help them in working for the good of our immigrant neighbors. In my computer there are dozens and dozens of stories from CRC members who tried and failed to get documentation for immigrants and then saw families broken apart or new friends waiting for decades to enter. For every one of those stories there are dozens more I haven’t had time to hear. This isn’t a debate about the semantics of the U.S. constitution this is an effort to change laws that are ruining people’s lives. U.S. laws do not change until enough people ask. This is a justice effort born out of scripture, relationships, compassion, and a desire to defend the cause of those who are most vulnerable."
1. The U.S. Constitution is one of our laws - the foundational one. It is usual when people claim a matter is mere "semantics" that they've got no real answer to the question put before them and would rather dismiss the whole matter. But we cannot, precisely because that's the law the rest are supposed to be based on. Besides, you brought it up and now you don't want to talk about it?
2. The laws are not ruining people's lives. Ignoring the laws, acting in violation of that law, willfully trespassing in our country and stealing from our citizens - stealing jobs, social services, medical care, and more to the point where hundreds of ERs have closed down, minority youth unemployment approaches 50%, and our national debt is immense. While illegal immigrants are not solely responsible for these ills, they contribute greatly to them. A guy who gets arrested for robbing a bank is not having his life ruined by the law against robbing banks. His life is ruined because he violated the law. A guy who breaks into somebody else's house and gets shot by the homeowner isn't dead because the homeowner defended himself but because he attacked the homeowner. So somebody who breaks the law to come here, settles, gets a job, brought kids with him who grow up knowing nothing of the home country, then gets caught - the law isn't what caused his problem. He did. It's not like he didn't know he was breaking the law.
3. I agree the U.S. should alter its laws regarding immigration. But those laws will also then have to be enforced. We want to make sure (a) that those new laws aren't worse than the ones we have; and (b) that they are so enforced. But enforcing those laws will also and inevitably have a deleterious effect on those persons who choose to ignore them. Those law-breakers will be vulnerable, too. What will you advocate then? Changing the laws back?
4. Have you any stories on your computer about those who lost loved ones because the ER they would have used is shut down and the closest one is now miles away? Have you any stories on your computer about young Black men who cannot find a job because they can't speak Spanish and so can't communicate with the illegals working there? Do you have any stories on your computer about people killed by illegal immigrants driving without the necessary skills or training on our highways? Pick your set of sob stories and I can find you others. The difference is, the people harmed in mine are legally entitled to be here and fellow citizens.
Posted in: Youth in Synod
I remember when age and experience were what was wanted at Synod....
I wonder, this fascination with what is young and new, this participation in the cultural adoration of youth - at what point does it cross the 5th commandment?
I realize that's an impertinent question in this particular context, but I figured the youth might appreciate a bit of impertinence from an old f&rt.
Oh, yes. I am aware of Paul's charge to Timothy to not let anyone look down on him because he is young. I'm also aware that, in the case of Jacob and Esau, the elder served the y ounger. Joseph also was not the eldest of Jacob's sons. But I know, too, that wisdom is more often than not bedecked with the hoary frost of years and hard experience.
Posted in: Youth in Synod
Amy - well said and point taken. I do, frankly, appreciate it when the youth question and challenge me because I relish the opportunity to explain how I have come to the conclusions I hold. I also know that the Lord can, and more often than us old folks like to think, does speak to his people through the mouths of those young men who dream dreams and those young women who prophesy.
I also think it is vital for those who lead to remember the reason for leading is to serve the led.
What I see happening, though, is the fragmentation of the church into interest groups - young, old, men, women, this race, that race, this this, that that. It turns what is supposed to be a family into a political institutions with various factions jockeying for position.
For instance, what matters is not the perspective, the interest, the biblical knowledge, the movement of the Spirit, or their relationships within the family of God, but simply that these advisors are "youth". Yet even on that score, they cannot legitimately be expected to speak for "youth" as a class or interest group - they were, after all, selected by the Board of Trustees, not other young people. Since they are not truly representatives of the designated interest group, nor are they selected by their respective churches or classes where they might be known and respected, they come to Synod wholly disconnected from the family and merely as "youth". It's almost as if Synod thinks 18-year-olds are interchangeable and all think alike.
Also implicit in this process is the assumption that elders and pastors who are delegated from the family - their respective classes - are ignorant of and unable to speak intelligibly about (or on behalf of) youth, some of whom are their own children or grandchildren.
I understand the fear that motivates the act - young people are not staying within the CRC as they graduate and move on. How do we fix that? Let's ask the youth!
Reasonable, as far as it goes, but at what point do we draw back from the brink? Where is that line between an appropriate effort to address the Lord as a whole family called into his presence, consulting the perspectives and opinions of all his children, and a fragmentation that denies the respect and honor due those who have gone before?
I'm not sure where that line is, but the rationale advanced officially for having youth advisors at Synod, and then for giving them voting privileges or the privilege of the floor, causes me to wonder if perhaps we may have crossed it.
Posted in: Clergy as Guild?
Sorry. Walter Russell Mead is the author.
Posted in: Clergy as Guild?
I found it intriguing - and the comparison of an ordained/educated clergy to a guild struck me as apt.
The effect of this trend on what I do as a pastor is not clear to me, but it strikes me that it changes my task more to one of a guide through the maze of information and opinions out there rather than as a source authority myself. I'm still ruminating on it, which is one of the reasons I thought I'd toss it out there for others to consider.
Posted in: Clergy as Guild?
The opinion of a wise man is not something to be scorned.
Posted in: [CLOSED] General discussion moved over from Synodical Reports discussion area
I have read the confession. It is vague and ambiguous on key points. Lacking clarity, it is open to misunderstanding and misuse. It also is highly contextualized to conditions in South Africa and of limited value in a North American context.
To the extent that it boldly states racism is wrong, I agree with it, but is there anyone out there saying racism is right? Did I miss something, or is there a pastor or classis somewhere advocating racism who needs to be straightened out? Is there a societal approval of racism that needs to be countered in North America? I'm not saying there aren't racists or that people don't unwittingly make racist judgments, only that nobody of any significance in the larger culture or in the church is denying that this is wrong or sinful - not in North America, anyway.
That leaves the confession's prescription for overcoming racism and I'm not sure that can be easily transplanted from South Africa to North America given our respective histories. To the extent American society is still segregated, it is voluntarily so, and that requires a very different approach than South Africa does.
In sum, it's vague and open to abuse, it is unnecessary, and it's a solution to the wrong problem.
Posted in: [CLOSED] General discussion moved over from Synodical Reports discussion area
JH - None of what you've said, really challenges my points with regard to the Belhar and its adoption as a confession on par with the Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort.
In regards to your last question - would adopting the Belhar shake us out of slow motion - the answer is "no." If encouraging, arguing, goading, motivating, inspiring from the Bible doesn't do this, the Belhar won't, either. And looking at the rather scant attention paid at present to the other creeds of the CRC, I have a hard time imagining that much more attention would be paid to this one.
And given the Belhar's vagueness on other points, it is potentially dangerous in its openness to abuse. If you would like my specific objections to statements in the Belhar, I would be happy to provide them.