While the Religious Left has played a pretty active and visible role in the current immigration debate, demanding amnesty for illegals and droning on about social justice and loving thy neighbor, the Religious Right has more or less avoided the issue. Perhaps that was for the best. As Allan Wall pointed out in a recent column, even though white evangelicals are far more likely to oppose immigration than pretty much anyone else, evangelical leaders are almost as open borders as their godless rivals.
Now, for better or for worse, some of these self-appointed spokesmen for the Almighty have decided to enter the fray, though it`s a little hard to tell whose side they`re on. According to a recent article in the Washington Times
(Christians Enter Illegals Debate
– By Charles Hurt, January 8, 2007), several leading Christian conservative groups have teamed up to endorse a proposal for immigration reform:
"In letters sent today and obtained by The Washington Times, Families First on Immigration urges President Bush and leaders of the new Democratic Congress to adopt a grand compromise on the divisive issue that includes strong border security, an amnesty for illegals already here who are relatives of citizens and an end to birthright citizenship.Former Republican presidential hopeful Gary Bauer, Deal Hudson of the Morley Institute for Church & Culture and David Keene of the American Conservative Union are among those who have joined forces to chart a new path on immigration reform, an issue that conservative Christians have generally avoided."
Well, it`s certainly not perfect, but it could have been much worse. I know when I first glanced at the headline, I never expected these guys to advocate anything as meaningful and substantive as abolishing birthright citizenship. Then again, that could always be overturned by the Supreme Court, and we`d still be stuck with the amnestied illegals.
Not surprisingly, evangelicals justified this concession on the grounds that we shouldn`t separate families, but as Enoch Powell
said long ago, "there are two directions in which families can be reunited;"
so maybe deportation would be the more "family friendly"
solution after all.