It goes without saying that immigration is a hot button issue at the moment. Both liberals and conservatives have strong views on the subject. I am an immigrant, and therefore have a keen interest in this debate. I entered the country at a recognized entry point with the proper documentation, obtained a green card, kept my nose clean, paid my taxes and several years later obtained my citizenship. If I had crossed the border by swimming a river, or climbing under or over a fence, then I would have broken the immigration laws.
The current debate seems to be centered on two aspects: compassion for illegals on the one hand and following the law on the other. There is considerable misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric on the subject. Some have talked about babies in cages being separated from their mothers. A recent Associated Press article reported in detail the abuse of children held in detention by immigration authorities. The reader was led to believe that these shameful treatments occurred under Trump's watch, but it was not until the 20th paragraph that the reader learned that the incidents happened under Obama's presidency. Time magazine also made false accusations which it later was forced to retract.
There are several other factors that muddy these complex waters. Many prospective immigrants are 'coached' by advocate attorneys to claim asylum, although some claims are obviously legitimate. Only 2,000 out of 10,000 children in confinement arrived with their parents. What do you do with them? Gang members and drug sellers also try to enter. They must be identified and stopped.
Congress is wrestling with the complicated and difficult subject of reconciling compassion and legality. Liberals want to give amnesty to the children who were brought here by their parents. Those “DACA's” were not involved in the decision to enter illegally. Conservatives are willing to accommodate them, but insist a secure border wall be built to avoid having this problem repeated again and again in future years. Some have waded into the debate by criticizing Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, for his quotation of Romans 13:1 to justify enforcing the law. Opponents quote several other Scriptures to show that we should show compassion to the foreigners and strangers. Both are right. But they are different subjects. When the apostle Paul wrote to the Roman Christians he told them to obey the higher powers. (John Wesley's commentary says this "demands our conscientious obedience.") Several of the Roman Christians were undoubtedly slaves. Nevertheless Paul said they should obey the laws, much as I'm sure he despised evil slavery. What about the other subject of compassion? As an immigrant I have been the recipient of much kindness in this country. Many people have welcomed me, and I am incredibly grateful for this.
However emotions run high when debating immigration. That is why I've sometimes used a short story to obtain a different perspective. Suppose Jill is shoplifting, but breaks her leg as she leaves the store with her loot. Should we show compassion and help Jill get to the hospital? Absolutely. But should we overlook her crime? I don't think so. Similarly we can be compassionate, but there should be consequences if someone breaks our immigration laws. Will Jill be separated from her young children as a result of her choice? Yes, she will be.
Peter Gilderson is a Northsider.
