Evangelical and Conservative organizers strategized for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) in an April 13 conference call organized by Conservatives for Immigration Reform. It seemed to be part of an ongoing push for liberalized immigration policies by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).
CIR legislation in Congress, touted by New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and Illinois Democratic Congressman Rep. Luis Gutierrez, would stipulate eventual citizenship for illegal immigrations and higher rates of legal immigration, including a guest worker program.
Call participants included National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) President Leith Anderson, National Hispanic Christian Leadership (NHCLC) President Samuel Rodriguez, Noel Castellanos of the Christian Community Development Association, and Jim Tolle of The Church on the Way, a prominent California congregation. The call emphasized the desire for “immigration reform this year.”
“It is difficult to justify being a supporter of family values and support deportation,” declared Rodriguez, who serves on the NAE’s board. “It is irreconcilable.” He insisted that CIR “transcends politics” and “extends from biblical and moral imperatives.”
As previously reported by the IRD, Rodriguez’s NHCLC is commonly referred to as the “Hispanic NAE.” The recent conference call was the latest attempt by Rodriguez and other Christian CIR advocates to win over conservative Christians to their cause. Conservatives for Immigration Reform billed the call as an opportunity for “more than one hundred conservative grassroots advocates from around the country…to hear from key Evangelical leaders in a strategy session and call to action for immigration reform this year.”
The call was opened by Rev. Mark Gonzalez, who prefaced his prayer by saying that it is “imperative that we go to God for divine intervention” to hasten the passage of CIR.
Framing immigration “reform” as a moral issue that demands Christian support, Andersen presented several reasons why evangelicals should push for CIR. Citing Exodus 22 and Leviticus 19, he argued that support for CIR was rooted in scripture. Furthermore, he said, due to the influx of immigrants in evangelical churches, immigration reform is now a “pastoral concern.” Finally, Andersen said that CIR is the right thing for the country to do, and for that reason deserves the support of evangelical Christians. These arguments are the same as those offered in “Immigration 2009,” an NAE resolution released last October. (For IRD commentary on “Immigration 2009,” see Mark Tooley’s “Evangelicals and Immigration” and Alan Wisdom’s “Who Speaks? Reflections on the National Association of Evangelicals Resolution on ‘Immigration 2009.’”)
The specific policies supported by Conservatives for Immigration Reform, the NAE, and the NHCLC were outlined by Jenny Hwang of World Relief and included the provisions in the Senate bill awaiting debate, recently introduced by Senator Shumer. These include increased border protection, greater internal enforcement, increased visa quotas, and a pathway to citizenship. According to Hwang, CIR would yield economic benefits because “leveling the playing field will boost the economy.” She did not elaborate on what this “leveling” requires or what net economic benefit it would produce. Later in the call, Hwang was asked about the wisdom of supporting CIR when the US economy is currently facing nearly 10% unemployment. She answered that, because a majority of undocumented immigrants are employed, bringing them into the legal workforce would actually decrease the unemployment rate. This does not change the fact, though, that there would be a net increase of unemployed workers and, consequently, greater demand for government services and support.
During his remarks, Andersen went out of his way to emphasize that the NAE “does not favor any type of mass amnesty or broad amnesty.” Speaking later in the call, Rodriguez returned to this point and emphasized that neither he nor the organizations he represents support any kind of amnesty. However, as critics of CIR have pointed out, depending on how the pathway to citizenship provision, for which Rodriguez and the NAE call, is construed, it could function as a form of amnesty.
Following Andersen on the call was Noel Castellanos, CEO of the Christian Community Development Association, who argued that current immigration policy is broken and ineffective. While in Castellanos’ view American policy “provide[s] no avenue” for undocumented immigrants to gain legal status, the examples he offered consisted of anecdotes chronicling the difficulty, not impossibility, of pursuing legalization.
Rev. Jim Tolle, pastor of The Church in the Way in California, spoke after Castellanos and addressed the issue of the rule of law. Though it is important to maintain the rule of law, he said, it is necessary to “forge a balance” between law and “the needs of our Hispanic brothers.” In support of this argument, Tolle posited that it is the “Christian position” to allow for redemption once an individual shows contrition for breaking the law. Stressing another “conservative theme,” Tolle argued that the brokenness of the immigration system affects families and makes it difficult for the children of immigrants to earn sustainable employment.
In their remarks, the speakers sought to convey a sense of urgency. Each made it clear that the passage of CIR depends on the current Democrat majorities; with likely Republican gains in the November elections, it may be now or never. According to Jenny Hwang, there is a “narrow political window” to win CIR. Hwang cited Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s comment last week that “we’re going to have comprehensive immigration reform now.” Since making that comment, however, Sen. Reid has backpedaled, saying recently that, “We won’t get to immigration reform this work period.”
When asked whether immigration reform was possible without the leadership of President Obama, Rodriguez said that Obama’s leadership would be necessary. He quickly added that he was optimistic because with the health care bill, the President was “successful in resurrecting a Lazarus.” Rodriguez concluded his answer by saying that if the President could pass a health care reform bill that a majority of America opposed, it should be simple to pass an immigration bill that is less unpopular.
In the coming weeks, the organizations represented on the conference call will hold several events aimed at increasing conservative and Christian support for comprehensive immigration reform. These will include a meeting at the White House, another conference call in a few weeks, and a gathering in Washington, DC after the May Day rallies.
No comments yet
