Immigration and Natural Law.

At the Aquinas group last night, reading ST II-II, Q. 26 on the Order of Charity, I was surprised to find that Aquinas completely accepted the notion that finite creatures may properly order their charity to those with whom they have the closest ties. This seems like such a difference from modern notions of charity that want charity to be chemically pure from any accusation of personal interest. But Aquinas's philosophy was a human philosophy and therefore based on common sense.

I taunted one of the group's attendees to turn out an essay on the subject, and he obliged. Here it is.

//COMMONSENSE ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

It is my view that there is a lot of muddle-headed thinking about Christian obligations to illegal immigrants in the United States.  This is due to a confused reading of Old Testament laws regarding the "stranger" or "foreigner."  This confused thinking also fails to take into consideration New Testament teaching about family obligations and Christian theological insights about natural law.

The Problem

As I see it, the problem is that some Christians insist that American citizens have a moral obligation to provide welfare benefits, health services, schooling and an array of other services to illegal immigrants who slip across our borders and make their way into our communities.  For these Christians this is a moral imperative or an "ought" based on Scripture or Christian tradition.

Firstly, however, if it is a moral imperative to supply these benefits to illegal immigrants then A) it is a sin (or unjust) to fail to do so, and B) there is no limit to this obligation; hence, these benefits are logically due to the millions upon millions of people that could illegally enter the United States.  Obviously, this could be a crushing moral responsibility placed upon struggling middle class Christians that would impede their ability to care for their own families.  Does God require Christians to provide welfare benefits and services to illegal immigrants?

Old Testament Laws Regarding the Resident Foreigner

Because the Israelites had been foreigners in Egypt, God stipulated divine laws regarding their treatment.  Often the reasoning behind providing welfare benefits to illegals is based on these laws.  But, what do they tell us?

First, Israelites were not to take advantage of or mistreat foreigners (Exodus 22:21 and 23:9).  On the other hand, foreigners residing in Israel were to obey and follow the theocratic laws of the land just like Israelites.  Read this.

Numbers 9:14 “‘A foreigner residing among you is also to celebrate the Lord’s Passover in accordance with its rules and regulations. You must have the same regulations for both the foreigner and the native-born.’

In other words, resident foreigners did not get a "free pass" from the law.  Therefore, we can conclude that an ancient foreigner who broke the law had to suffer the penalties and consequences of those laws he/she violated.  It seems unlikely that a law-breaking foreigner would have been treated the same as a destitute, law-abiding foreigner.  Leviticus 25:35 does indicate that Israelites were to assist fellow countrymen and resident foreigners who fell on hard times.  However, this presupposes the foreigner had legal residence.

Priorities of Care

What is often overlooked by the Christians who make an "ought" out of providing benefits for illegals is that the New Testament lays out a strict order for the care others.  In this regard, family and fellow Christians come first.

Read these verses and notice the descending order of obligations.

1 Timothy 5:4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.

1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Galatians 6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.

The order goes as follows:  first, children and grandchildren are to care for their parents (and grandparents); second, Christians are to care for those in their own household; third, Christians are to do good to fellow Christians; lastly, they are to do good to others as they "have opportunity."  In other words, there is distinct priority of love and care that begins with one's family and gradually extends to those who are strangers to us.  Usurping this priority--in Paul's view--is to deny the Christian Faith.

But let's take this a step further and read what Aquinas has to say about our Christian obligation to love our family and those who we are not tied to us by family relations.  He uses Exodus 20:12 to indicate that Christians must love their family members first and foremost.  Then he adds the following.

[II-II, Q. 26, Art. 8] Accordingly we must say that friendship among blood relations is based upon their connection by natural origin, the friendship of fellow-citizens on their civic fellowship, and the friendship of those who are fighting side by side on the comradeship of battle. Wherefore in matters pertaining to nature we should love our kindred most, in matters concerning relations between citizens, we should prefer our fellow-citizens, and on the battlefield our fellow-soldiers. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 2) that "it is our duty to render to each class of people such respect as is natural and appropriate.

The Christian's Obligation to Fellow Citizens

I quoted Aquinas' words because he extrapolated outwardly from a biblical principle about the priority of our love for family members to then include our fellow citizens.  He clearly shows that Christians are to love and care for their fellow citizens in preference over non-citizens.  Just as it would be wrong for us to neglect the real needs of a family member in order to care for other people; likewise the Christian has a higher obligation to his/her fellow-citizen than to an illegal non-citizen.  So, if welfare benefits, hospital emergency rooms, schools and the like are overburdened and driving up public debt, they must be triaged in favor of citizens.  From a Christian perspective, it is morally wrong to neglect the care of fellow citizens in favor of non-citizens.  It is also wrong to give preference to non-citizens over citizens.  This is commonsensical because--as Aquinas notes--it is rooted in "natural origin" (God's created order).//

When America elected a dangerous radical on the issue of immigration...

...in 2008.

The good news is that Obama is solving the problem of illegal immigration...

...the bad news is that he had to destroy the American economy to do it.

For the first time since the Great Depression, more Mexicans leave the United States than enter:

A four-decade tidal wave of Mexican immigration to the United States has receded, causing a historic shift in migration patterns as more Mexicans appear to be leaving the United States for Mexico than the other way around, according to a report from the Pew Hispanic Center.

It looks to be the first reversal in the trend since the Depression, and experts say that a declining Mexican birthrate and other factors may make it permanent

Ethnic Cleansing in Los Angeles.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting on an indictment against Mexican mafia gang members to "ethnically purify" Azusa by driving African-Americans from the city through threats and intimidation.

Members of a Latino gang affiliated with the Mexican Mafia conspired for nearly 20 years to drive African-Americans out of the Southern California city of Azusa through violence and intimidation, federal authorities alleged Tuesday.


Fifty-one alleged members of the Azusa 13 gang were indicted on racketeering and conspiracy charges; six were accused of conspiring to violate the civil rights of African-Americans. The case marks the second time federal civil-rights laws have been used against a gang, authorities said.


"The Azusa 13 gang waged a campaign of hate during a two-decade crime spree in which African-Americans were harassed and attacked," U.S. Attorney André Birotte Jr. said in a written statement Tuesday. "We hope that this federal case will signal the end of this racist behavior and will help vindicate all of the victims who have suffered over the years."

Thirty-nine of the defendants were in custody Tuesday. Authorities were still searching for 12 other suspects. Lawyers for some of the defendants couldn't immediately be reached.

While racial tensions among gangs have long been a part of turf wars in Southern California, none of the victims of the Azusa gang's alleged racial harassment were part of any rival gangs or criminal enterprise, authorities said. They were targeted simply because they were black, authorities said.

Prosecutors said the gang adopted a "racist principle" that, according to the indictment unsealed Tuesday, members would "harass and use violence to drive African-Americans out of the city of Azusa." According to the latest U.S. Census information, about 64% of the city's 47,000 residents are Hispanic and nearly 4% are black.

The gang targeted African-Americans with robberies and beatings, and defaced their homes with graffiti using racial slurs, the indictment alleges. New gang members "would use attacks on African-Americans as a way of proving themselves as members of the gang and enhancing their position in the gang," the indictment alleges.

NRO's Mark Krikorian asks incredulously, "It took 20 years to get around to this?"

District Court Judge Scoffs at Obama Administration's Preemption Argument...

....against the Arizona "check immigration status" law.

According to Ed Morrissey relaying information from the Washington Post:

Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).


Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.

"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"

According to Morrissey:

Answer: there is none. Even the DoJ recognizes that. They have a BIET program that is designed to help local law enforcement personnel do exactly what the White House complains Arizona is doing. Checking people who are arrested or detained for valid ID, and probing their status if they fail to have it, is so basic to law enforcement that Bolton must feel as though she’s slipped into the Twilight Zone.