One Issue

I read an article today by Sean McKenzie criticizing Mitt Romney as having un-Christian political practices. The article is careful not to relate this to mormonism and even states, "One of the most godly men I know is Mormon, and I owe him a debt of gratitude for seeing me through one of the most difficult times of my life in a Christian manner. 'Be the man God wants you to be,' he admonished." I state this so that no one will think I am accusing McKenzie of Mormon bashing. He goes out of his way to make it clear that he has no issue with Mormons, just Romney. The issue I have with this article is that the author uses one issue, illegal immigration (although the author curiously leaves the word illegal out of the description), to prove his point. No other evidence is used to show Romney's policies as un-Christian and against his religion. I find this to really be lacking. One issue which is controversial and finds no consensus even among religious leaders of Christians is used to call his policies un-Christian? I would have hoped for more. Frankly there are probably not any candidates out there who's views line up perfectly with anyone else's or with every concept of Christian action.

The issue of illegal immigration deserves a little more attention since McKenzie brought it up. He uses the scripture that says to welcome the stranger as his main proof as well as a scripture to love the alien among you as yourself. I argue that one can be opposed to illegal immigration while still loving his neighbor (or alien) as himself and welcoming strangers. Jesus taught us to "love [our] enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matt 5:44 KJV). He taught forgiveness. Yet I don't know many people who would argue that all prisoners should be set free regardless of crime. It is still possibly to love and forgive while upholding laws.

I suspect McKenzie knows that his argument is weak. My reason is because he used the term immigration to describe illegal immigration. If your argument is good then there is no need to cut out the word illegal to make it. The fact is McKenzie probably left the word out because it is much easier to make his point with the word left out. Then there isn't the awkwardness of using the term "illegal alien" next to "alien" in the scriptural proofs.

Many Christians have issues with illegal immigration. Does that mean we hate illegal immigrants? I certainly don't. Desiring an orderly immigration process is not bad and wanting laws enforced is not bad. Just because Christ tells the people not to stone the woman taken in adultery doesn't mean that we should legalize prostitution (despite what Ron Paul thinks).

McKenzie argues that enforcing immigration laws will tear immigrant families apart. This deserves scrutiny. It will not tear legal immigrant families apart. It will reunite many illegal immigrants with families they are supporting in other countries. It will also encourage legal immigration which will help families. The only families it will tear apart are those composed of an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant. In these cases it will only tear them apart if the legal immigrant is unwilling to return to their country. I'll admit that there may be some other minor cases of families being affected. I must point out that sending a drug dealer, murderer or rapist to prison often tears families apart. Of course I'm not suggesting that illegal immigrants have committed crimes of the same level as these, but being deported allows the family to follow if they choose, something prison doesn't allow in the same way.

I find the persecution arguments lacking. I also don't find the arguments about civil rights leaders breaking the law to be compelling.

There's more I could say, but I'll save it for another time.