SB 1070

Two years ago my current home state of Arizona passed a bill, commonly referred to by its senate designation number SB 1070, designed to hinder illegal immigration and to remove illegal immigrants from the state. Its location on the Mexican border, along with tighter enforcement of border crossing in California and Texas, has made Arizona a popular place for illegal migrants to enter the United States. Given its already sizable Hispanic population, many of these migrants naturally chose to stay, live and work in the state. Many in the state, including a majority of our state legislators, view these migrants not only with distrust but with outright enmity. They see illegal immigrants as a drain on our state economy and a threat to our health, welfare and security.


At the time it was passed, I was living outside of the country and had been for several years. My initial information and impression of the bill came through online sources and personal contacts back home. Most of those contacts are strongly conservative and favor very strict immigration policies and enforcement of those. They, naturally, supported this measure. I also initially favored it. I have lived as a legal resident in other countries in which I was required to carry immigration documents at all times, so that if questioned by authorities I could always demonstrate my immigration status. So it did not strike me as unjust or even unusual for the state of Arizona to require the same thing. 


Since returning to Arizona my view on this has shifted significantly. My objection comes not along the lines that the federal government is contesting the law. I am not particularly concerned with the question whether the states have authority in these matters or not, although I understand how some see this as a key issue in the debate. That appears to be the issue that the Supreme Court will decide this summer, looking specifically at Arizona's law. My objections come rather from two different fronts. These are not unique to me.


First of all, the question of racial profiling. The law not only entitles but requires state and local law enforcement personnel to inquire about the immigration status of any person during a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” or during a “lawful contact.” Supporters of the law claim that this does not involve racial profiling, but in a state located on the southern border of the US, where the overwhelming majority of immigrants are of Latin American origin, how can it do otherwise? I hardly imagine that the state police would be inclined to question a white guy like me about my immigration status. The default assumption is that white guys like me are here legally. So it's the Hispanics who will get the extra attention. That's called racial profiling. 


Furthermore, I object to this clause because we do not have standard documents in the United States that prove someone is a legal resident or citizen. More accurately, such documents do exist, but we are not required to possess them or to carry them at all times. So a Hispanic who is a citizen or legal resident when stopped by the police and asked to produce his or her papers showing proof of legal residency, has no legal obligation and may not have any document to prove this. Most Americans don't own passports and even those of us who do will not normally carry them with us while traveling around our home city, state or country. This marks a big difference between the situation I faced while living overseas and the Arizona law. In the countries where I lived, all citizens have a residency document, usually called an “internal passport” that they carry at all times. So in such a situation, it is less unreasonable to ask resident foreigners to have a similar document with them.


My second objection relates to the first in that the whole immigration issue focuses on people from Latin America. I don't hear many calls to tighten the Canadian border. I don't see us building big walls to keep the Canadians out. Naturally not, because they aren't trying to come across illegally. They don't need to. They have decent (better, in fact), living conditions in their home country. So our call to crack down on illegal immigration stems from our fear of people whom we view as different from us, people who threaten our cultural way of life, who make us feel uncomfortable. I don't buy the argument that they take American jobs, because more often than not they are doing jobs most Americans don't want for wages most of us would not accept. In fact, I argue that these immigrants (including the illegal ones) add value to our economy. I don't have the facts to back this up, but I'm confident they exist. Our efforts to stop illegal immigration come from our fear of the "other." It's not a new issue in the history of immigration in our country, although it seems to have taken a stronger, more virulent form.


As I wrote yesterday, I read my Bible and hear God calling people to welcome foreigners and strangers, and to provide for them. God reminds people that they too were once strangers and slaves in Egypt. I hear God calling us to reach it and include those who are in need, those who are hungry, thirsty, naked, poor, desperate. I don't hear God telling us to build bigger walls of exclusion, to circle the wagons and try to protect what is ours, to react in fear to those who are different than us.


What would an open, inclusive immigration policy look like? I'm looking for someone to offer such a proposal and I'm looking for others who would dare to step up and support such a proposal. I'm encouraged by the small step taken at the instigation of Sojourners, which you can read about here. Are we willing to put God's kingdom above our own sense of country, our own sense of safety and security, and our own fear? Are we willing to stand up for those in need? 

Reflections on Leviticus

Today I finished reading the book of Leviticus. I haven't read through this book in years. Reading it again reminds me why I don't read it more often and why we don't hear too many sermons preached from this book. The rules and regulations are presented in a mind-numbing parade of ordinances and, probably more significantly, don't seem particularly relevant to our modern world. In fact, most Christians really don't know how to relate to the laws laid out in this book. In case you are hoping that I will resolve this problem for you, let me disappoint you right now. I don't have the “key” to Leviticus. In fact I came away from reading it with as many or more questions than I began with. Let me share a few reflections with you.

Leviticus is about holiness. The principle idea is that because God is holy he demands that his people be holy as well. In order to accomplish this, he laid out a number of rules and regulations to govern the lives and behavior of the Israelites, so that they would clearly be distinct and different from the peoples around them. This basic principle can be summarized with part of verse 11:44: “Be holy because I am holy.” I get this concept. But I struggle with many of the regulations God laid down to accomplish this.

I find it hard to accept that God rejects people for things they have no control over. Women are unclean and effectively outcasts for a good portion of each month simply because of their natural biological activities—functions that God created in them. Similarly, I realized that due to a particular medical condition I have I would very often be ceremonially unclean. I could not have contact with other members of the community and would essentially be cut off from both human and divine fellowship. The constraints on me place me in the same position as the women around me, which makes me that much more sympathetic to their marginalized status. Why should I be unclean because of a medical condition I do not choose or desire to have and why should a woman be unclean because of the natural flow of blood she has each month? This strikes me as a repudiation of God's own creation. Given the different behaviors or conditions that can make a person unclean, I think a lot of people would be unclean at some point in their lives, perhaps on a regular or perpetual basis. I understand that God wants to emphasize his holiness, but how does marginalizing so many of the people in his community accomplish this?

I also chafe at the different values placed on men and women. We read in chapter 27 that the value of a man ranges from 33% to 50% higher than that of a woman, depending on the age of the individual. In general this book and others in the Pentateuch really marginalize women and I struggle to reconcile that with a God who created both men and women in the divine image.

The simple answer, of course, is that this book represents the Old Covenant. In Jesus we have now a New Covenant and the laws and regulations of the Old Covenant are now fulfilled in him. Certainly I embrace this—in fact I welcome it with joy. I can see clearly how the rules of the Old Covenant demonstrated effectively that we as humans cannot live righteous and holy lives. Israel never fulfilled this covenant and neither could any of us today. Perhaps that is the main take-away from this book. But I still struggle with a God who in seeking to purify his people created rules that marginalized or excluded so many of them from his community. To be honest I'm not comfortable with this, although I still don't know how to resolve the internal tension I feel.

I also struggle with the fact that many Christians would still maintain some of the rules and laws in this book. While acknowledging in principle that we are saved by grace through the redeeming work of Christ, many still insist on upholding some parts of the old code. This may be a legitimate exercise, but I wonder how we determine which parts are still valid and applicable and which have been superseded in the New Covenant. Most of us don't try to follow the dietary rules (for which I am thankful every time I enjoy bacon and ham, among other delicacies), nor do we tear down someone's house because it develops mold. I've not heard anyone seriously suggest that we try to implement a Year of Jubilee in contemporary society. I'm not sure whether it could be instituted at this point in time. There's no evidence that the Israelites ever celebrated it. I don't think most of us are overly concerned if any of our clothing is made of a blend of fabrics (19:19).

However, many people would uphold the sexual mores laid out in Leviticus and opponents of homosexuality often cite the two verses in chapters 18 and 20 related to this behaviour. The same people would not, in my estimation, condone the killing of adulterers, as advocated in 20:10, nor have I heard of anyone considering it an act of impurity for a man to marry his brother's wife (the text doesn't make it clear whether after death or from divorce), although I watched a movie not long ago based on a true story in England in which a woman married a man who eventually died. After his death she and her deceased husband's brother fell in love and wanted to marry, but apparently the laws of England forbid this. I imagine this law was based on verse 20:21 It was not overturned until after World War II. I mention this because when I heard of this situation and saw the connection to this Levitical law, I recognized the absurdity of trying to implement the rules and regulations of this book in our New Covenant era, much less in our post-Christian, multi-cultural society. I think we do not have a clear framework for determining which, if any, commands in the book of Leviticus or other parts of the Pentateuch still have validity and apply to us as Christians under the New Covenant. I am not arguing that we can simply ignore the book of Leviticus, but I do wonder what we are to make of it and, if we believe that its rules are still valid, how we determine which of them are. At the moment this book seems to me primarily to represent the Old Covenant and the impossibility of being holy and righteous through our own efforts.

I'd like to hear what others have to say on this topic. How do you understand this ancient book? What hermeneutic would you follow in determining which, if any, of its commands and laws apply today?