Religious Leaders Sue Trump Over Immigration...Violating Their Own Religious Doctrine!

Twenty-seven religious groups have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that ICE raids in houses of worship violate federal religious freedom protections. This group of 27 is composed of multiple conferences and organizations, each representing dozens or even hundreds of religious institutions, including the General Assembly for the Presbyterian Church, the New York State Council of Churches, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Wisconsin Council of Churches, and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. 

They base their entire suit on the premise that the Torah welcomes the stranger, and it is true that this is a principal concept of their religions. As they say correctly in the opening two paragraphs of the suit, “The Torah lays our this tenet 36 times, more than any other teaching: 'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens, you shall love them as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt' (Lev. 19:34).  They are absolutely correct that this is the most oft repeated teaching in our text.

 Which is why they are absolutely incorrect about the immigration policies of the Trump administration being in opposition to the theology.

 A simple reading of the verse equates the behavior of the immigrant to the behavior of the natural born citizen.   Immigrants are to be treated the same. This means that if he commits a crime, he is to be punished, the same as a natural born citizen would be punished for criminal action. They are to be treated the same… NOT treated preferentially.  If a natural born murderer is in a church, it is appropriate for the government to arrest him there.  In the same way, it is the obligation of the legal authorities to arrest any illegal alien who is a criminal in a church.

The text that they are basing their argument upon the line that says that strangers who reside among us, i.e. immigrants, are to “be to you as one of your citizens”; and they should be treated that way.  Like natural born citizens, they are to have opportunities for advancement; and similarly, they are to have certain responsibilities.  Responsibilities that are outlined in detail in the Talmud and commentaries on the text going back over 2000 years.

 The “Right of Settlement” (chezkat hayishuv) is an ancient understanding over 2000 years old of how an immigrant must act in a new nation that was further developed and detailed over the centuries. It is based on how the ancient Jews felt they should act in new nations, as they were being dispersed all over the world after the destruction of the Temple. The ancient Jews wanted to be accepted in their new nations, and so designed practices to help with that integration. These practices became the laws for all immigrants who seek to settle in a new locale. As its name implies, this concept details the rights of the immigrant to live in a certain place. And with those rights come responsibilities. One of the primary responsibilities of the immigrant is to pay taxes (Bava Batra 21b) and add to the economic growth of the new location.  They are not to be an economic burden on the community, but an asset. Additionally, they are forbidden from residing in the new town if their immigration negatively affects the economic wellbeing of current citizens, i.e. taking jobs away from them (ibid).  There is an exception to this rule codified in the 13^th century by Rabbi Mordecai ben Hillel: when the would-be immigrant is seeking asylum if there is a clear and present danger to the immigrant in his home city/nation.  Since this lawsuit against the Trump administration is based on religious text, perhaps the words of Jeremiah are appropriate:  “Seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile… because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”  It is the responsibility of the immigrant to help his new nation prosper, not become a burden on it.

All citizens of every nation are to abide by the laws of the land, and there is another primary concept for immigrants that also traces its roots to over 2000 years ago:  “the law of the land is the law” (dina d’malchuta dina).  Whether the immigrant believes the law is just or not, as long as it is consistent, it must be abided by.  By all citizens, and by every immigrant. If the would-be immigrant does not like the laws of the land, the answer is simple:  they just shouldn’t immigrate, and should either go somewhere else or remain in their native country.

 When it comes to illegal immigrants, the theological law is even more clear.  Again, for over 2000 years there has been a basic principle that a “sinner should not be rewarded by law for his misdeed.” This principle is the ancient version of the jurisprudence doctrine of “ex turpi causa,” meaning, as Lord Mansfield put it in 1775, “no court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act.” In today’s applicability, this concept manifests as a prohibition of amnesty for illegal aliens as they should not be rewarded for their misdeeds.  Although, if they are contributing to the economic advantage of the nation, and are abiding by the law, there is an argument to be made that eventually they should have a path towards citizenship; albeit a slower path than those who immigrate legally.

 American law is clear and simple about what is illegal versus legal immigration. Whether based upon ex turpi causa or any of the ancient theological practices of thousands of years, the Trump administration has not only a right, but a responsibility to go anywhere, including houses of worship, to capture illegal alien criminals.

So if the theology is so clear, even in the very verse that the lawsuit is citing, why are these religious institutions basing their suit upon it?

 There is an old story that a rabbi went to a village, and saw a lot of arrows in the bull’s eyes of many targets.  He was told that the great archer was a nine-year-old boy.  When he asked the boy how he got to be such a great archer, the boy replied, “It’s easy. I shoot the arrow, and then I draw the target around it.”

This is what these religious groups are doing. They believe that illegal aliens should be given amnesty, and so they misuse biblical text to try to justify their opinion. It is the same process these same leftists use in arguments about abortion, gender issues, and forgiving terrorists for their evil actions.  They have their personal beliefs, and attempt to use the religious law to justify their beliefs even when it is clearly antithetical to the theology.

 Should immigrants be welcomed in America from a theological standpoint?  Absolutely.   But they must abide by our laws and bring economic advantage to the nation, not break the law and/or deplete the nation’s resources.

These religious institutions need to become more honest so that they stop serving their own political beliefs, and instead serve their congregants, faith traditions, and God.