Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Immigration charitable, but unsustainable
Q: Illegal immigrants are flouting U.S. laws, but does affluent America (or Arizona for that matter) have a larger moral or spiritual obligation to help illegal immigrants who are trying to better their lives? What about religious obligations to welcome the stranger? Are we our brother's keeper?
Illegal immigration is one of those situations where I think Christian notions of charity and welcoming the stranger lead us in exactly the wrong direction. (Just one more reason why I'm proud to be a secularist.) To me, most commentators on both sides of the immigration debate miss the real point, which is (or should be) population policy. Yes, Mexico has a surplus of people, many of them poor and miserable, who will pay any price to go elsewhere. Yes, America must seem a glittering paradise to many of them. But the qualities that make America so attractive are now endangered by -- OK, I'll say it -- excessive human numbers. This is especially true in our southern border states, where existing populations already tax natural resources, especially water supplies, far beyond the point of sustainability.
Viewed from that standpoint, and in the context of secular values, Arizona is already overpopulated . A substantial fraction of the people who live there already will need to go back north just to make this sere desert landscape sustainable in the long term. Allowing large-scale immigration is out of the question for reasons that have nothing to do with race or culture.
Of course, recognizing this requires us to rethink a couple of traditional verities. One is Christianity's historic call to welcome the stranger at all times and places (a call Christians have a very uneven record of heeding, by the way). Another is America's civic tradition of welcoming anyone with a strong back and a willingness to work. A century and a half ago, the nation needed as many such immigrants as it could get. Today we don't have natural resources enough to provide for the folks who are already here.
There's an overwhelming new fact we need to take account of that trumps both of these traditional considerations: in a very real sense, America is full.
By
Tom Flynn
|
May 25, 2010; 10:16 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: "And thou shalt love the stranger" |
Next: Welcoming Bible's "stranger" may not include illegal aliens
Posted by: Athena4 | June 1, 2010 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As an atheist I hear a lot of Christians tell me about God’s absolute views on various issues. Oddly enough, God can seem to communicate his view on those issues very well. For example, on the issue of illegal immigration, there are some extremely vocal Christians on both sides of the debate.
While different Christians can quote various Bible verses to support whatever position they choose, this issue really goes to the heart of religion itself. To put it simply, religion is a form of tribalism. It is a way of solidifying the in-group and demonizing the out-group. In the case of Christianity, the out-group might be accepted if they completely change who they are and are converted into the in-group.
You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://bit.ly/d5Wbmq
I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.
Posted by: dangeroustalk | May 26, 2010 1:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Of course, recognizing this requires us to rethink a couple of traditional verities. One is Christianity's historic call to welcome the stranger at all times and places (a call Christians have a very uneven record of heeding, by the way).
---------------
That may be due to the fact that the "call" was not issued to you. It was issued to the Jews, strangers among you whom you have tried relentlessly to destroy.
I'm jes' sayin'
Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | May 26, 2010 11:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Tom Flynn read too much Malthus
Posted by: bruce18 | May 26, 2010 10:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Areyousaying,
I've been to Arizona. On my last trip to Phoenix I saw row after row of McMansions with grass lawns ... in a desert. Overpopulation doesn't always mean people living cheek-by-jowl. Sometimes it just means enough people to deplete the least abundant natural resource, and in Arizona that's water. Despite all those wide open spaces, Arizona is indeed overpopulated.
Tom Flynn
Posted by: Tom Flynn | May 25, 2010 4:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Flynn has obviously never been to Arizona if he thinks it is overpopulated. New York City is overpopulated, Tom, not Arizona.
Posted by: areyousaying | May 25, 2010 3:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Population density is more than just how many people there are per square mile. It's how many people can be sustained by the infrastructure in the area. In an area like Arizona or southern California, there are way too many people for the water supply to handle.
It's all in the infrastructure. Yeah, you could live in a trailer out in the middle of the high desert. But you wouldn't have running water, electricity, sewer, etc. Just ask any of the Native American tribes whose land is out in the middle of the high desert.