Credit: First Mennonite Church, Lincoln, NE
This is the second in my series of blogs on immigration and immigration reform. In today’s post, I’m going to take a brief look at the history US Immigration Policy. I have to admit that when I researched the topic, I was dismayed to find out that my lifelong vision of my country’s cry of “Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” was thoroughly shaken. In fact, I walked away from my research shaking my head because that cry is nothing more than rhetoric.
So let’s take a look at the policy over the years. From 1790 to 1849 US immigration policy can be described as: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me (as long as they are “white”, “male” and “of good moral character)”, I (will) lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Yes – that’s correct – the first official US immigration policy allowed “white males” who were of “good moral character” to enter the United States freely. If they established themselves as being of good moral character for two years, they became citizens.
US immigration policy from 1849 to 1924 can best be described as: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me (as long as they are not Chinese or Catholic), I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” In the 1850s, a group called the “Nativist/Know Nothing” movement targeted Catholic immigrants, claiming the country was being overwhelmed by Catholic immigrants who were regarded as hostile to “American” values and controlled by the Pope. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which, as it sounds, excluded anyone of Chinese descent from entering the United States. In 1917, Congress added a literacy requirement to US immigration policy in an effort to curb the influx of low-skilled workers entering the US.
In 1921, Congressed passed an emergency quota act followed by an official quota act in 1924, and the policy became: ”Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me (as long as they are not Jewish or Slavic),
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” This was the first time in the history that whites were actually limited. The primary focus of these quotas was to prevent the influx of people from Southern and Eastern Europe. This prevented many Jews attempting to escape Hitler’s Germany from being able to enter the United States.
US immigration policy took another turn in the 1950s: ”Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me (as long as they are not Mexican or Korean)”, I (will) lift my lamp beside the golden door!” With the onset of the Korean War and McCarthyism in full swing, there was an effort to keep out anyone who might be a communist. In 1954, the US instituted “Operation Wetback”, which returned people of Mexican descent to Mexico. The preferred method of transport was ship so that people could be taken as far from the border as possible. Unfortunately, not only were people who were in the US illegally returned to Mexico, so were Latino people who were US citizens.
During the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the quota systems were somewhat put to rest. The immigration policy during those decades became focused on refugees from Soviet bloc countries and Cuba. In 1965, the Hart-Caller Act replaced the racially based quotas with preference categories based on family relationships and job skills. Some of those preferences still exist today. Thus, the policy from 1965 to 1990 can best be described as: ”Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me (as long as they are they are related to someone already living here or have a job skill we can exploit)”, I (will) lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
In my next blog post in this series, I will discuss current US immigration policy, which can best be described as: ”(Don’t) give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. (Keep) the homeless, the tempest-tost. (I don’t want them. It’s) my (God-given) lamp beside the golden door (and I don’t intend to let it shine on anyone I’ve determined God doesn’t approve of so I’m building a multibillion dollar fence and passing unconstitutional state and local laws to keep you out).
Credit: First Mennonite Church, Lincoln, NE
Ok – so I haven’t gone there yet, but it’s time. My next several blogs will focus on immigration reform from a faith perspective.
There are many, many rich texts throughout all of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles such as Leviticus 19:34, which states: “34The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” But for this and the next several posts, I want to use the story of Lazarus at the gate from Luke 16:19-34 as a foundation for my series on immigration policy.
The story should be familiar to most of us. Jesus was talking to a group of Pharisees who were lovers of money. He told the following story: There once was a rich man who dressed in purple and wore fine linen. He feasted sumptuously every day. Outside his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus. Lazarus was covered with sores and longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table. Unfortunately, for Lazarus, there were no scraps and the dogs that licked his sores provided his only comfort. Both the rich man and Lazarus died. Lazarus was taken up to be with father Abraham while the rich man suffered torment in Hades. When he looked up, the rich man saw Lazarus with father Abraham. Reading between the lines, one quickly understands that the rich man then had a much more complete understanding of how God viewed his indifference to Lazarus.
There is a lot of rich symbolism in this text. First, the rich man’s dress is significant. Purple was reserved for royalty and the priests were dressed in fine linen. Thus, it doesn’t take a great leap in logic for us to understand that to Jesus the rich man represents the people of Israel – the royal priesthood. In Hebrew “Lazarus” literally means: “God is my help.”
This imagery would have been much more significant to Jesus’ audience that day than it is to us. To them it would have been readily apparent Jesus was comparing to the people of Israel to those excluded by the people. Most likely, they would have been pretty astonished that Jesus referred to the outsider as “Lazarus” — God is my help. To them, the Lazarus in the story could have represented those who were considered unclean by virtue of disease, sin, as the pharisees understood it. Likewise, Jesus could have been referring to women and Gentiles – anyone considered being on the outside by the people of Israel at the time. There certainly is a veiled reference to Gentiles by Jesus’ use of the term “dogs,” as that would have been a term the people of Israel used to refer to Gentiles during Jesus’ day.
When I last preached on this text, I couldn’t help but think about the difference between those living in the United States and those so desperately seeking to enter it. For the greatest part of my 53 years, I’ve been steeped in the understanding that as a citizen of the United States I live in a “nation under God with liberty and justice for all.” I have been taught that if I work hard enough, I can do anything and have anything I want. I have been taught that the one of the surest measures of success is how much I have and how comfortable my life is. While some of my friends will likely argue that I’m being somewhat cynical or jaded in that analysis, I think it’s fairly accurate. Often I hear people talk about their financial success in terms of “blessings.”
I look at our society and see houses with two and three-stall garages some of which are so filled with stored up possessions, the cars sit outside. But at our southern border, I see people who would be thankful to live in the equivalent of a one-stall garage. Like Lazarus, who longed for the rich man’s left overs, people in Mexico and Central and South America look to their neighbors to the north and see the opulence. They long to live on the left overs knowing they can live a much better life inside the gate than they can on the outside.
So how does this text speak to us in relation to US immigration policy? What I hear most good Christian people in the United States saying is that they believe our policies are “fair and reasonable” and that all those who want to come to the United States need do is apply, be approved and enter. As we’ll see throughout this series, though, our immigration policies have never been like that. In fact, our policies have always been pretty selective in terms of whom we will allow in. Our current policies are, in fact, so restrictive, it is virtually impossible for anyone south of the border to enter the United States legally for the purpose of becoming a United States citizen.
I don’t pretend to have any particular insight into what God wants from us other than I do know God expects us to use our blessings to bless others and that God expects us to be loving and compassionate in all we do. So it is on that framework that we will build over these next several weeks as we explore God’s call in relation to our immigrations policies. I hope you enjoy this series and I welcome your comments along the way.
It’s been a little while since I’ve posted a blog. I guess life has a way of giving one lots to do.
Not so long ago I had the opportunity to preach on the passage about the Good Samaritan, and I thought I’d share my thoughts with you.
Jesus is confronted by a legal expert regarding the meaning of “neighbor” . . . Jesus tells the following story:
A Jewish man is traveling between Jerusalem and Jericho. He is attacked by bandits and left for dead along the side of the road. A priest comes down the road, sees the man and walks by on the other side of the road. Later a Levite comes down the road, sees the man and also passes by. Still later, a Samaritan comes down the road. He sees the man and has compassion on him. He dresses the man’s wounds and takes him to an inn and pays for his stay and care. He then tells the inn keeper he will return to check on the man.
Like the lawyer who was challenging Jesus in the story, we quickly get the point. The one who showed mercy to the injured man was the one who had done what was right according to Jesus. But is that really the end of the story? What is Jesus really telling us and how does that translate into our world today?
I don’t think this is so difficult for us to see how Jesus is calling us to act on a case by case basis. I do, however, believe it is becoming ever more difficult for us to see how Jesus is calling us to act within the framework of the larger picture: our public policies.
If we plug Jesus’ facts into our public policy, how do we fare? Are we walking by those who are laying by the side of the road? Or, are we, like the Good Samaritan, offering immediate care and ongoing assistance?
I am intrigued by those who claim the United States is a “Christian nation” yet argue against public sponsored health care or food stamps or increasing taxes. To me it just sort of seems like we want the benefits of being a “Christian nation” but we don’t want any of the responsibility that goes with it. As my good friend Rabbi Ilan would say – “Oy”! How is that we can claim to be Christian and just keep walking on by?!
The Exodus is a beautiful story. Yet, I’m confident there are those who experienced it who had their doubts. Throughout the Biblical account of the Exodus, we are told of normal people, like you and me, grumbling and complaining about the conditions and seemingly longing to return to the certainty of their previous discomfort. We people are like that you know — preferring the pain of certainty over the fear of the unknown.
According to Exodus 16, 45 days into the journey, the Israelites enter the wilderness of Sin, which lies between Elim and Sinai. I imagine they were pretty road weary by that time, and the wilderness certainly must have appeared to be pretty daunting. ”Surely,” they thought, “we will die here. This wilderness cannot produce enough to feed such a vast number of people. As miserable as we were in Egypt at least we had plenty of food to eat.”
As God always does, God heard the complaining and responded. The answer wasn’t exactly what the people expected or even wanted. But, it was what the people needed. Every evening God promised to provide enough quails for everyone. In the morning, God promised a bread like substance called “Manna.” God told the people to go out each day and gather each according to his/her needs for the day. Nothing was to be stored.
Just as God promised, God provided enough Manna for all each according to their need. Unfortunately some people didn’t trust God, and gathered more than they needed and tried to store it up. But what they stored up became foul, rotted and was filled with maggots. As such it was of no use to anyone.
Though it isn’t specified in the Exodus account, it is certainly implied that when some gathered more than they needed and stored it up, others were not able to gather enough or perhaps any at all — after all God provided enough for all each according to their need. If some gathered more than they needed, it would have been at the expense of others. Most likely it was the widows, orphans and the vulnerable who went without.
In reflecting on the story, I can’t help but wonder whether this is really a story about food or a lesson about God’s design for a just economic system. Let me elaborate.
From Genesis 1 we learn that God created and it was good. From the very beginning, God was generous in providing for the all of God’s creation, but especially in providing for the crown of creation — humankind. Unfortunately, no matter how generous God is, humankind demands more — more power, more provisions, etc.
In the Manna story, we have a simple and clear example of God’s intent for God’s people. God provides all the people need, each according to their need — not more, not less. There’s enough for all. We also have a simple and clear example of what happens when God’s people don’t trust God and allow greed to take over. Some go without and what is left over spoils and is generally of no good to anyone.
Nothing has really changed. Everything still belongs to God and God provides all we need — enough for all. So why do so many go without? Could it be there are those who gather too much to the detriment of others? Could it be those who control the distribution of God’s resources have their own motives for allowing the powerful to gather more? We are taught that it is a good thing to accumulate wealth. We are taught that success is measured by how much we have — how much we pass on to our own in the next generation. While a majority of Christians I know are quite generous, I know few who are willing to trust God so completely that they don’t store up something for the future. I do it. Most of us do. But how much is enough? How much do we need? Could we get by on less? How many suffer because I gather too much – who goes without? It’s certainly food for thought.
Well, that’s all I have for today. May God grant you rest on this Sabbath day.
As a student of Christian ethics, I often wonder if American Christians ever think very deeply about what it means when the prophet Micah declares, “do justice” in Chapter 6, verse 8. My guess is that they probably don’t. I know I’ve pondered that query with a number of my Christian and Jewish colleagues and found that it’s not generally a burning question for most of their congregants.
My guess is that many, if not most, Americans simply perceive themselves to be a part of a society based on Judaeo Christian values, including “justice”, without really giving much thought to what it means to be a “just society” from a Judaeo Christian perspective. In my view that’s dangerous for a number of reasons. Foremost among them, I believe it renders our Jewish and Christian faiths to forms of civil religion in which our understanding of God and loyalty to country are so intermixed, there is no discernible distinction and “country” or “nation” becomes our god. From what I can tell based on my study of Jewish and Christian scriptures, that’s generally not pleasing to God.
But try as I may, I can’t seem to find a place in the scriptures that clearly and distinctly says, “to do justice one must . . .” Rather, to really come up with a clear picture of what God means when God calls us to “do justice”, one must look at the scriptures from many different perspectives, including as an unfolding and unending story of God’s presence in the world. When one does that, one sees over and over that God measures how just a society is by how it treats certain people — most often widows, orphans and strangers/aliens (see e.g., Exodus 22:21-24, Deuteronomy 10:18, Leviticus 19:34 and 25:25, among many, many others). Jesus extended that to not only strangers, but also to our enemies. According to Matthew 5:11, Jesus said, “But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” And of course in Matthew 25:31-40, Jesus includes what he refers to as “the least of these.”
So are we a just society? I guess the answer to that depends on how God sees it. In other words, it’s not my call. It seems pretty clear to me, though, that in order for us to measure how just our society is by God’s standards, we need to look closely at how we treat today’s widows, orphans, strangers/aliens, our enemies and the least among us. From my perspective, it doesn’t look too good. But again, that’s not my call — it’s God’s.
Some will likely argue that faith is only one part of our lives, and these rules only apply to how we conduct our lives in our churches and synagogues. Does anyone seriously buy into that? God’s concern doesn’t end at the door of the religious center, but lingers and permeates all of society, including how we act in concert as a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Others will likely argue that widows, orphans and strangers/aliens don’t deserve just treatment. Again, that’s God’s call. But, there’s nothing in the scriptures to indicate God believes people should be treated justly only when the dominant members of society determine they deserve such treatment.
I know my friends in Fremont, Nebraska, probably won’t like this comment (well some of them – you know who you are – will), but I’ve got to ask, given God’s perspective on how we ought to treat the aliens among us, how do you think God is going to vote in the upcoming city election on immigration policy? Oh that’s right, God doesn’t get a vote. Instead, God is going to leave it up to the free will of God’s children in Fremont. I wonder how many of them will take God’s view of justice with them when they go to the polls?
Well, that’s all I’ve got for today. May God bless you and keep you as you continue on your journey as a child of God in God’s marvelous creation.
Recently former Vice President Dick Cheney declared that “Washington is broken.” I guess I can’t quarrel with the comment. Notice though that the statement seemingly lays the blame for that brokenness on someone else. Hmmm – from a theological perspective, that’s rather interesting.
Systematic theologian Ted Peters posits we all draw a line in the sand and place good on one side and evil on the other. He continues that we always place ourselves on the good side. That’s sad but, in my opinion, true, and we can see it so vividly played out in politics today. People on both sides of an issue rant and rave about the “stupidity” or “lack of caring” or “greed” or “malice,” or any number of horrid things of the other side – almost never acknowledging their own complicity in the problem. It’s a “hey, they’re broken – if they’d only listen to me” world. Often the biggest concern one has about a particular piece of legislation is how it will affect him or her or that it might cut into one’s profit margin. Rarely, does one see it from a more comprehensive and selfless view.
So while I can agree Washington is broken, I have to also say it’s only because we’re all broken and fall short of the glory of God. It’s not the Democrats who are to blame. It’s not the Republicans. We’re all to blame for the brokenness in the world.
The good news is that despite all our shortcomings God will still use us to get things accomplished. God calls us to really dig into God’s word, wrestle with it, digest it, listen to what others have to say about it and move forward with it as our foundation. We have to start pointing the finger at ourselves and ask, “how do I contribute to the brokenness.” It’s hard — it’s uncomfortable and requires an ongoing commitment. But hey – like Bonhoeffer says there’s no such thing as cheap grace.
Well, that’s my thought for the day. May God bless you and keep you. May God make God’s face shine upon you and be gracious to you. May God look upon you with favor and give you peace. Amen.
