Conservative Evangelical Leaders Testify Before House Committee on Immigration

Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law held a hearing on: the Ethical Imperative for Reform of our Immigration System.

Evangelical leaders are among the most passionate advocates for passing comprehensive immigration reform. Their testimony at the hearing was both insightful and intelligent.

Richard Land, President, Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission described:

three pillars” of any comprehensive reform bill: border security, interior enforcement, and legalization/guest worker program.

“Fundamentally, Southern Baptists and other Evangelicals view immigration through the lens of their faith,” said Land.  “As citizens of the United States, we – meaning Southern Baptists – have an obligation to support the government and the government’s laws for conscience’ sake. 

We also have a right to expect the government to fulfill its divinely ordained mandate to punish those who break the laws and reward those who do not. 

But, Southern Baptists also recognize a biblical mandate to care for “the least among us”, to care for the “strangers” who reside in our land, and to act justly and mercifully. Later in the hearing, Land said,

“In 2006 the Southern Baptist Convention, the last time the Congress was debating this issue, passed a resolution overwhelmingly. 95% plus vote and you understand that when the convention passes a resolution those are elected messengers from the 44,000 churches each local church elects a member to go to the convention and vote their conscience.

And I think any fair reading of that resolution is a policy that secures the borders and then finds a way toward legal status an earned pathway toward legal status.”

This is a great framework for how to discuss immigration among faith based conservative voters. Andrea Nill over at Think Progress, has a great post up from the hearing about the definition of "Amnesty." 

The post focuses on an exchange between the ranking member on the committee Steve King (R) and witness Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman, Liberty Counsel and Dean, Liberty University School of Law over the definition of Amnesty. The full post can be read here, with the video and transcript below.

KING: I would define amnesty this way [...] — to grant amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their crime. And I just submit that definition to you and ask as a lawyer, an attorney, as a pastor, and as someone who has studied this thoroughly, how you would react to that definition. [...]

STAVER: Congressman King, that definition would not be consistent with the rule of law. It would not be consistent with the definition that is Blackstone or Black’s Law dictionary. Amnesty would be forgiveness — complete forgiveness — where you have absolutely no penalty. That’s what Ronald Reagan did, I don’t support what Ronald Reagan did. I don’t suppose that that is what I’m proposing here. [...]

KING: Then I would submit then Reverand that the path that you’ve described here is pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English. Those things are designed to provide the objective of the person who has already broken the law. [...] I don’t see that as a penalty or any kind of recompense for breaking the law. [...]