A Catholic case against an Open Borders immigration policy

Here.  There you go.  Immigration isn't a fight I have much of a dog in.  There are immigrants in the area, and the various Churches I've belonged to - (Conservative) Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox - all have various levels of outreach and aid to help them out.  As for the legal cases, I'm bothered by the idea that laws are made for some people, but not others.  Especially when that distinction is based on where you come from, what you look like, and where you were born.

Nonetheless, I'm not living along the southern border, nor am I immigrating into America from south of the border.  I've grown leery of people dividing the sheep and goats based on lofty geopolitical issues with which they are not personally involved, or are not personally able to participate with beyond yelling on the Internet.

I merely notice that for reasons nobody has adequately explained, Democrats and liberals, many who were opposed to such open border immigration policies years ago, are now firmly behind them.  And let's be honest, when you shoot down any alternative that doesn't end with full amnesty and complete entry into our country no questions asked, that's open borders.

That's the first thing I notice, those clearly advocating something they refuse to admit they're advocating.  To me that is never a good sign.  The second is that many of the reasons liberals did oppose illegal immigration don't seem to have changed, yet the liberal position has.  So why the change?  The thing I notice is the usual tendency of the Left to plant the righteous and holy flag on the summit of their argument, and declare any who disagree to be human excrement scraped from Hitler's rectum.  Strike three in my book.

So read the above take.  It's a different viewpoint than that advocated by Catholic bishops, the pope, the Democrats, our liberal culture, and most socialist governments in Europe.   Therefore, it is rare.  But not necessarily wrong.  I'll leave you to decide.

Americans will be inviting unlawful immigrants to move in with them all over the country tomorrow

Actually not, there will just be protests, unlike the nationwide protests and accusations of America's Holocaust that didn't exist back when Obama was deporting immigrants and separating families.  Of course not.  It wasn't quite as advantageous to do such things back then.  It is now.  The press says so.

Immigration is one of those topics that is easy for most Americans to get behind since, ultimately, it doesn't directly impact most Americans.  If illegal immigration hurts anyone, it's not me.  I don't live along the border.  I'm not so poor as to be hurt by the cheap labor illegal immigration provides.  And I'm certainly not the one risking life and limb by crawling through Central America on my way to the US because of our current 'open borders in all but name' mentality.

Most screaming the loudest about immigration seem to have little to no direct connection to immigrants and those hurt by the influx of immigration.  At best, they see it like terrorism - something they can pontificate about that won't impact them if they're wrong.  At worst, they seize upon it because human suffering can be exploited to advance a political agenda.

Either/or, the best solutions are actually those that make sure the least of these born on both sides of the border are considered and emphasized.  Here is a nice look from someone who isn't even American.  About the best Catholic take I've seen.  Not perfect, but certainly better than most I've seen.

If that isn't enough, then at least consider this.  If you don't really care, or put much time into caring, about those on America's side of the border, then in the long term you're just hurting those who today are immigrants.  After all, down the road they and their children will be those on this side of the border.  Perhaps that will get these who suddenly care on cue to care on principle.

When the Washington Post unpacks an inconvenient immigration truth

It's time to sit up and take notice.  So for over a week, I've watched claims about Trump's policies, Trump's lies about the "Border Crisis (TM)", and the actions of previous administrations walked back, contradicted, changed and altered.

The initial stories ran as if we never even heard of Immigrants, and now Racist Trump was initiating the new Holocaust out of the blue aimed at murdering children in cages while families were sent to concentration camps.  Cue hysterics and protests by the donkey masses.

Problem is, almost everything that has come out since the initial days' reporting has torn down that narrative.  Of course the protests, like a train, aren't easily stopped.  They continue on as if nothing has been released to change the story.  It's still SatanHitlerTrump and America's Great Holocaust out of the blue.  Facts and truth mean little in this day and age.

In another setback for people who don't seem to care about immigrants, the United States, Americans or the Truth, however, the Washington Post has released a story suggesting why Trump is trying to finally fix this decades' long problem.  That's the Washington Post.  It turns out that, under Obama's policies, immigrant children were being handed over to slave traders.

Well, they're called human traffickers because we call modern slavery human trafficking.  It's slavery.  Calling it slavery reminds us that human slavery was only out of the picture for a few decades in the last half of the 20th century.  The last country to outlaw slavery did so in the 1950s I believe.  Before that, slavery had been practiced in some form or another - often in different forms in the same region - since the dawn of time.

Of course the sex industry is one of the main driving forces of the modern slave trade. Since the media is loathe to focus on the dark underbelly of issues it supports (like the modern sex and drugs culture), the modern slave trade and the sex industry's part in it get about as much coverage as the occasional hot air balloon race.

Beyond the Slave Traders who we'll call Human Traffickers, the children were also neglected as those entrusted to care for them engaged in systemic abuse.  On the whole, it was a disaster.  As the immigration issue has been for some decades.

Like gun violence and overall violence in America, if you only care about that which is usable for political gain, accusing appeals to the wider issue of being a defense for Trump  or hating immigrants, then you're actually the main problem.  Nor are you pro-life in any sense of the term.   Because following the latest hysterics that only erupted under Trump instead of Obama because it's politically expedient, suggests you care far more about scoring political points than helping the least of these, either in America or outside of its borders.

And that, children, is not what Jesus would have us do.

Dave Armstrong looks at the Immigration problem through a Catholic Christian lens

Not the lens of the political Left.  The Left's lens says that 1) we don't give a damn about our country's identity, 2) we sure don't care if poor Americans are suffering, and 3) laws are only valid when convenient, often based on ethnicity, national origin and religion.

Dave actually helps us remember that breaking laws is not an option.  In the most dire of circumstances, where immediate survival is in question, perhaps stealing bread or a vial of medicine unlawfully hoarded would be considered.  But wantonly and proudly defying the law, and then living a life based on lying and further breaking laws is not - repeat not - the teachings of the Church, or most historical Christian traditions.

We won't even get into the notion that we should only care about immigrants when convenient.  That's not just a violation of Christian ethics, it's a violation of the most basic ethics of common decency and goodness:

Trump focuses on non-people

Non-people are those people who are useless or counterproductive for the Leftist narrative.  They are the women who think women should focus on their maternal roles in raising children.  They are black conservatives, Hispanics against illegal immigration, former gays who left their lifestyle behind them, liberals against abortion, Muslims who call out Islam, and those people whose suffering and death does't advance the Leftist narrative.  They are cops killed by blacks, whites killed by minorities, victims of Islamic terrorists, and Americans killed by illegal immigrants.

So Trump bothered to focus on the other half of the immigration problem.   That's the half that, when brought up, everyone insists is important but never seem to get around to discussing.  Even Christian leaders and the Catholic Bishops give little attention to those Americans hurt and killed by the immigration problem.  This plays off the postmodern notion that as long as [Other] Americans do the suffering and dying, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make (since  we no longer have a notion of 'Our country' or any such rubbish).

How will the Left and the New Prolife Christians react to families suffering because of illegal immigration?  Some have already accused Trump of trying to make people afraid of immigrants.  This is opposed to the Left that makes the world scared of Americans. I used to say ISIS didn't need propaganda.  It could just turn on the US news or listen to a Democrat.  No Nazi or Communist propaganda poster was ever more brutal than they are.

Most news shows this morning mentioned it briefly, but then moved on. No stories about the families, no spotlights on this or that victim.  Media Tactic #4: Mention an inconvenient truth briefly, then move on.

The New Prolifers?  My guess is they will just ignore it, or they will do something like attack Trump for exploiting people or changing the discussion or something.  This will use that modern Leftist tactic that assumes the Left is obviously 100% right, so any deviation from its narratives is obviously wrong, evil, stupid or some such.  When inconvenient human suffering is raised?  Attack, ignore, deflect, but for heaven's sake don't focus unless it helps the Left.

Demonstrating political tribal partisanship and zealotry

So if your political opponents say 'Look, if you don't like what our president is doing, come up with a solution.  We need to make sure everyone is OK, and while that includes immigrants it also includes those back home.  But it is, and has been, a mess for some time.  Just as liberals said in the 80s and 90s, the countries they're from must also be accountable. In the meantime, we must fix this ages old problem before more people get hurt", and your response is to compare them to the lawyer being told the Parable of the Good Samaritan, then you're likely the partisan zealot. 

After all, the non-partisan response would be "While I disagree, and am appalled by what Trump (and Obama) have done about immigration, let's sit down and figure this out.  After all, it's the innocent, especially the children, who matter."  Instead it sounds like it's more important the political opponents be attacked than anything good happen for the immigrants, children or otherwise.

FWIW, my ears are now deaf to anyone who is calling this crisis the next Holocaust and comparing Trump to Hitler, ICE agents to Gestapo, and the border to Auschwitz, unless they have opened the doors of their homes and are letting any and all immigrants in their homes without question.  If they live too far away, I expect them in their cars and vans, driving to the borders, in order to invite immigrants back to their homes and allow them to stay without question. 

After all, we know the allies, including the United States, could have done more than raise an army and sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives in order to defeat Nazi Germany.  We know they purposefully chose not to do things, not because those things wouldn't work, but because they secretly were glad the Nazis were killing Jews in death camps.  We know the Americans knew all about the death camps from day one.  How?  Because we said how evil the Nazis were but millions still died.  Obviously it had to be on purpose.  Racist America after all.

So given the rather high standards we hold the past to, and given the fact that this is now Hitler/Holocaust, I don't expect there to be a single excuse for why a critic of Trump doesn't have at least one immigrant family in their home.  For those who are housing immigrants?  Bravo.  Well done, Good Samaritan.  But for those who merely support others who do, or are merely involved with others who do the heavy lifting for immigrants, I say anathema.  Because of the standards we hold our own nation's past to, we must assume they really don't care about those immigrants at all, if they'd rather score political points than work together.  If they are raising the Holocaust Banner but aren't housing the immigrant, then it is they who are the Priest and the Levite. 

Normally I don't say 'Unless you have done everything, you have no right to an opinion.' We all have our situations in life.  But the rhetoric is so over the top, the willingness to condemn and judge so common, the refusal to allow for discussion, nuance or pity so standard, that it's high time to put their righteousness where their mouths are.

If everyone cared about Americans who have been hurt by unlawful immigration

How liberals see anything done by non-liberals in America today

As much as we care about the sad spectacle of children being removed from their parents, we probably wouldn't have come to the point where children are being removed from their parents.  The problem would have been fixed long ago.  I thought of that as I was reminded of this old article from January in the National Review.  It's taking a look at the crime stats regarding immigration along the southern border of the US.

Now I'm not going to get into a slug fest over stats.  You know the old saying about statistics and liars.  But the fact is, some Americans died at the hands of immigrants who were here illegally.  That's a fact.  We won't talk about the strain that caring for illegal immigrants put on the monies used for America's least of these, as Democrats said back in the 90s.  Nor will we talk about the bizarre unspoken idea that laws only apply based upon your national origin and skin color.  We won't get into the idea that immigrants might actually take jobs from Americans who are most desperate for the jobs the immigrants have taken, or those DACA recipients who have wowed the critics by living their entire lives outside the law while making it through Ivy League universities and landing corporate level jobs in Silicon Valley, all while home grown Americans can barely digress from a traffic law without having their careers sideswiped.

Nope.  We're just taking Americans killed by immigrants.  And you know what happened when this was brought up over the last decade or so?  Not a damn thing. Sometimes you were mocked or laughed at.  Sometimes a bizarre stat about White Americans killing more people than Muslim Americans would be thrown at you (which is a bit like saying Californians shockingly kill more people than Rhode Islanders).  It was almost always explained away, laughed away, dismissed, mocked or just ignored.  After all, they're only Americans.  Over the last couple decades, they increasingly came last.

Which is one of the greatest evils of our age, this postmodern ethic whereby as long as [other] Americans die, it's the sacrifice I'm willing to make.  Add to that the modern racism, where you can always tell a racist who probably got what's coming to him by the color of his skin (and nationality), and you had a very robust disregard for those who died, perhaps by the hundreds, at the hands of illegal immigrants.

Note that the article is just talking about one part of the crime problem.  I know people will say you'll never stop all illegal immigration, so such tragedies are inevitable.  Just remember that the next time Gun Control activists insist that their solutions should be tried, even if they would do almost nothing, since saving even one life is worth everything.  Same here.  But the fact is that the conversation never even came to that.  You just couldn't get anyone to care.  Those who did care were mostly people along the border, who often were portrayed by the press as bigots and racists by default, if they were covered at all.

Of course now we all care.  Now we're in the throes of the new Holocaust.  Literally.  This is being compared to the Gestapo, to the Nazi SS, to Concentration camps and even to Auschwitz.  Trump is Hitler.  All who defend it are Hitler.  They are all wrong.  The Bible is clearly against it.  It's an affront to God.

And in almost every case, the ones screaming Hitler! the loudest today are the ones who stood aside and let the crickets do the talking when the suffering and even death of innocent Americans and their  children was appealed to for all those years.  Somehow I think the point of the Gospel isn't that people only matter when their suffering helps advance a political agenda.  Somehow I think the point is that people matter, and when they are suffering, we should do something to make sure they are helped without hurting other innocent people.  If we do that, maybe others won't suffer down the road, even if their suffering does make for advantageous political exploitation.

BTW, to understand Trump, one need only think on this issue.  Since the end of the Cold War, the Left was pushing us to a post-nation world; a one world global government.  Everything was going global. If Americans were hurt?  Eh.  If you cared about America (or England, Italy, Poland, or any other nation)? Eh.  Get over it.  Increasingly, anyone came before an American.  A stranger before my cousin, my cousin before my brother, and everyone before [other] Americans.  The press was fine with it, the Democrats thrived on it, popular culture embraced it, and many religious leaders were hip to the groove (after all, Jesus didn't come to establish America).   But Trump has thrown that on its head and said 'Nope, in fact my main concern is Americans.'  Perhaps he does it to a fault.  Maybe he goes overboard.  But he is caring for tens of millions of Americans who, up until 2016, were simply not that big of a deal for a growing number of leaders who used to care, at least when it was convenient.

Immigration policies and abortion are not the same

My thoughts on immigration aren't at the forefront of my priority list since I don't live along the borders and am not directly impacted.  Years ago, liberal Democrats were all about controlling legal immigration and curbing illegal immigration.  That was back when I identified as a liberal, if not a Democrat.  Seemed logical to me.

That's changed of course.  Somewhere, in the early 00s, suddenly the Democrats became the party of open borders in all but name, the Catholic Church either paved the way or jumped on board, and that's been the only acceptable approach ever since.  To oppose their particular policies and approaches meant you were nothing but racist or hated babies from other countries or whatever.

Now, on the whole, my thoughts are pretty simple.  Fix the immigration laws so that people can obey them easier than they can nowadays.  Even if our country is pretty open compared to many, there is always room for improvement.  Meantime, do our best to accommodate and help those who have come here by divers and sundry means, but don't say the law doesn't apply based on your skin color or national origins.  Likewise, if concerns about children are brought up, make sure we care about the least of these coming into our lands, as well as the least of these currently in our lands.  That was one reason why the Democrats used to be so tough on illegal immigration, because of the strain it put on our ability to help our own 'least of these'.  As far as I know, we still have our own least of these, and attempts to dismiss or downplay their concerns are no better than pulling a child from a parent and hauling him back home.

In a nutshell, the best immigration policy makes sure we don't rob Peter to pay Paul, that we take into account those on both sides of the border, and we ensure that we're not laying the groundwork for future problems by suggesting that laws no longer matter, based on what you look like or where you're from.

Given the tenor of the debate over the last 15 years or so, I must admit that most seem to have failed on these simplest of standards.  Oh, they'll insist they care about everyone or whatnot.  But taken as a whole, you'd be hard pressed to believe it - and that includes both sides, not just the side that can go too far with telling people to stay out of our country no matter what.

One more thing.  I write all this because I notice as many Christians on the Left come out into the sunshine to deal with the Ireland vote, some are appealing to immigration in a sort of 'Gotcha!' way.  How can you possibly be pro-life and allow this to happen!   Care for the least of these  (on both sides of the borders) is, of course, the Christian way.  But there can be disagreements as to how we achieve this.  Neither side may be altogether correct, or perhaps there is a third option that hasn't been thought of.  But whatever, your belief in which political policy approach is best is not - repeat, NOT - equal to aborting the unborn.  That is an intrinsic evil.  You cannot excuse it, allow it, defend it, or downplay it.  It is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

Yes, if people want the young and helpless among immigrants to suffer and die, that too is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.  Likewise, if people say they don't give a damn if Americans or their kids suffer since they have no right to complain, that too would be a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

But between those extremes can be honest disagreements over how to achieve the best for the most people.  Between those two extremes is where good Christians in good faith can come together and discuss possible solutions.  There is no good faith disagreement over allowing babies to be aborted.  So don't compare the two.  Keep the two separate, and don't try to wiggle a decidedly political, and perhaps flawed, solution to the immigration problem onto the same tier as abortion.  That misuses doctrine and makes a mockery of the slaughter of the innocent that is abortion, as well as setting up for future problems if all of your polices are followed, and yet the least of these continue to suffer on one side of the border or the other.

Immigration and the American Elite

When immigrants were the bad guys

Is kicked around over at The American Catholic. 

Yep.  It's a tangled mess right now.  Was a time when Republicans seemed more willing to let illegals in and turn a blind eye.  That's where the jobs were that Republicans didn't want.  Liberals were all about restricting illegal immigration because illegals tended to tap the system America's poor most needed.  Plus it didn't compel the countries they were coming from to change their ways.  When Reagan let millions leap the fence, it wasn't just white Republicans who fussed.

All that changed over the last decade and a half.  I couldn't begin to tell you why.  Like the historical origin of most things, it's likely difficult to pinpoint.  I just know that by later in the Bush II administration, open doors and blank checks were increasingly a Democratic platform, with fighting to restrict and curb illegal immigration belonging to the Republicans.

This, of course, turned into a convenient meme whereby any restrictions on immigration at all suddenly became the result of racist Republicans in Red States hating on immigration all because immigrants are ethnic minorities, and the beautiful people in Blue States just loving on them some poor and needy.

It is much more complex than that, but once an issue becomes entrenched in bumper-sticker sloganeering, it becomes difficult to find a middle ground.  Terms such as immigrant and refugee become conflated, and people end up getting lost in shuffle.

It is true that some Conservatives are willing to turn off the spigots when it comes to immigration altogether, especially from some countries they perceive as threats.  They see that immigration, and the expectations for immigrants, has radically changed since the wave of immigration at the dawn of the 20th century. 

They are right about the changes that have occurred.  Somewhere along the line, it appears we stopped insisting that immigrants become Americans, and more or less figured they can come here for whatever reasons please them, and do no more than they care to do.  They can even keep their own cultures and languages as a priority over any identification with America.  It matters not.  Or at least that is how it appears.

Meanwhile, though they don't admit it, there is little to suggest that the Democrats, and many Christian leaders, want anything other than open borders.  Sure, they deny such charges.  But bring up almost any type of restriction or legislation to regulate the flow of immigration, and you're smacked down in a heartbeat.  Bring up concern for America's own 'least of these', and you're assured that nobody wants Americans to suffer ... and yet there is scant follow up with actually concerning ourselves with America's own 'least of these' where problems with immigration are concerned. 

And, as I pointed out here, this doesn't count those dreamers who have made a substantial living as illegal immigrants, going to Ivy League universities, getting six figure incomes in Silicon Valley, and living high end Wall Street life styles.  All while an increasing number of Americans can neither afford college nor even a new car for their families.  All of this is then mixed with the ugly fact that many who scream the loudest about immigration have scant personal contact with actual immigrants.

On the whole, immigration mainly means that flow of immigrants from south of the border, because that is where the lion's share of immigrants are coming from.  America is unique in that it shares a large, common border with another nation that is a constant source of unending immigrants wanting to come into our country.  And not all want to come in order to become good Americans. 

Some want to come to get jobs and send funds back to their families who have no other intention of coming here.  Others, of course, are those unmentionables who come on the back of the drug trade or some other nefarious design.  Because of the size of the border and the cultures sending this constant, never ending stream of immigrants, the states along the Southern border are most impacted. 

For instance, it's a fact that when compared to Americans as a whole, immigration seems to have no disproportionate impact on crime.  When the states along the Mexican border are examined, however, the impact of immigration and immigrants on crime in those localized regions changes dramatically. And that means something for the people living there; the people who everyone insists are important but nobody ever seems to focus on.

Which is a problem, and brings us back to Donald McClarey's post.  In the end, whether it's Christian leaders, Hollywood celebrities, or federal Politicians, much of the debate about immigration is being waged by people who seldom come within a hundred miles of actual immigrants.  If they do, it is from a comfortable distance.  They might talk to or shake hands with the immigrants, heck they might even let immigrants clean their toilets.  But they are safe and snug away from the worst problems associated with modern immigration. 

Most pro-immigrant warriors are comfortable income wise, and whatever jobs - high end or poverty level - immigrants take doesn't impact them.  If immigrants murder an American or wreck an American's car or take a poor American's job - what is it to these warriors for immigrants?  There are more than 300 million people in America.  Like terrorist attacks, the odds of immigrants causing something bad to happen to anyone I know and love is right up there at Powerball level odds.   Like so many things in our postmodern age, there's a tendency toward martyrdom by proxy.  These leaders proudly proclaim carte blanche for immigrants, no questions asked.  And if some other poor schmuck American suffers as a result?  Well, that's the sacrifice these bold leaders are prepared to make. 

It's like the old image of military and government leaders sitting in their palatial estates while the foot soldiers hit the beaches. Only it has transferred now to domestic warfare between our competing ideologies.  Our elites sit back, shaking hands at Harvard and dining with celebrities while bemoaning the plight of people they're seldom near, and insisting the problems for citizens are important, but never feeling compelled to allow those problems to be part of the equation.

On the whole, I don't comment on immigration because it doesn't directly impact me, and I haven't opened my home to any immigrants (they don't need more problems than they already have).   As George Bush works on the 'How I helped elect Trump' tour, however, it just exemplifies the rank elitism that has come to dominate this debate that is ostensibly all about the least of these.  It might say it's about the least of these, but it's waged between those with the most of everything, picking and choosing which of the least of these matters, and which don't.

For me, it seems the best - and perhaps only correct - way to approach the issue is to make sure our policies and deeds speak to the 'least of these', wherever they are born and whatever they look like.  We make sure people here and coming from there know we have their backs.  We don't pit one group against the other, or tacitly ignore the concerns of a group simply because of nationality and skin color.   Modifying our immigration policy, especially if it makes it easier for people to become citizens (in our nation that is already pretty good compared to most countries), wouldn't hurt.  And if we want to go crazy, actually inviting immigrants into our homes before we point fingers at others might be a token of good faith.

What should Catholics believe about immigration?

A fair question posed by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry over at America The Jesuit Review.

It boils down to how supporters of Open Borders can square with the Church's historic teachings about the rights of a sovereign nation.  On the other hand, how can opponents of Open Borders say their desire to restrict immigration is Christian?

I would say that problem is the premise.  First, nobody says they are advocating for Open Borders.  Technically, as Deacon Steven Greydanus insisted, the Church supports a nation's rights to protect its citizens, up to and including regulating its border.

That's technically.  That's on some dusty old Canon law book in the third section of the Vatican library basement.  And that's the problem.  Each time someone advocates restricting immigration, or somehow dealing with those here illegally, even without deporting them, but not wanting them to get off the hook, they are met with charges of being unChristian, uncharitable, even racist.  Mr. Greydanus certainly implied, however subtly, the same about me.

Of course in the same breath, we'll be schooled on the fact that the Church in no way denies a nation's right to enforce its borders.  Advocates of not-open-open-borders will insist they simply want the system reformed, and all the innocent children protected.  And yet, anything that doesn't end up more or less saying 'Open Borders and Amnesty for all immediately' is met with the above reactions.

It reminds me of a Calvinist who once explained how God can ordain damnation and yet be off the hook in terms of forcing someone to reject Christ.  You see, God doesn't make them reject Christ.  God simply removes every other conceivable option.  The person is denied any choices to the Gospel but rejecting it.  So the person still deserves the blame, since technically he is still rejecting it.  So you see, God is in control of everything, but we still deserve blame because we chose the one choice God allowed us to make.

Sound crazy?  Well, that's sort of what happens in the actual 'doing of the issue' rather than just the words spoken about the topic.  Technically, the Church, its leaders, immigration advocates who are Catholic, all insist they're not advocating open borders.  Real, fair, and comprehensive immigration reform that doesn't hurt innocent people is all that is demanded.  And yet, once the conversations are finished, it's clear that the only options that fit within these demands are options that look to all the world like Open Borders and unqualified amnesty.  They simply reject any alternative that doesn't end up looking that way.

I'd say that's the biggest problem.  Those questions in the piece are fair.  My answer would be that the Church must come to the table and say how it will not condone the sin of lying and deception, will make sure citizens aren't hurt, and will actually support specific restrictions on immigration.  And it must do so in a way to make sure it cares every bit as much for the struggling citizen as the struggling immigrant.

As for the idea that limiting immigration is not Christian?  Hardly.  It's a ploy of the modern world that to be Christian is to have no limitations.  Christianity is all about limitations.  About choices.  About choosing life, not death.  About being responsible.  We welcome all who come to us when fleeing persecution or trials.  But we expect them to begin their journey by obeying the law and being honest.  And we expect the system to make sure that as people come to the US, it is not to the detriment of those already here.  Limits are fine, and hardly unchristian.