We've all been hearing about the new immigration law in Arizona. And as is to be expected, church folk are trotting out Leviticus 19:33-34 about "the alien who resides with you." As we all know, trotting out Old Testament law and uncritically applying it to contemporary circumstances is always risky. For instance, what would it mean to be a "citizen" in the ancient Near East, and how would that apply to current discussions about immigration law? Has anyone seen any good commentary or resources?
Question About Immigration Law and the Ancient Near East
Comments
10 responses to “Question About Immigration Law and the Ancient Near East”
-
Wouldn’t it be anyone who was not Israelite?
-
I’d also be interested in hearing about the intersection of labor and settlement in the ANE biblical context. Like the situation in our country today, I doubt foreign peoples were just residing in Israel’s land without affecting its productivity. There’s an economic story there, but I don’t know enough about the period in question to say what that story will tell us.
-
Looking at Jacob’s life, we see that he had considerable wealth and prosperity when he returned to Israel. But as an old man, due to famine, he was forced to migrate to Egypt. I’ve read that this type of survival migration was common. And, of course, the treatment in Egypt is part of what prompts this passage.
What there doesn’t seem to be is a clear parallel for our notion of a progression toward becoming a “legal” immigrant. Would the phrase “legal immigrant” mean anything in the ANE culture? Unlike in our world, politics, religion, familial connections, and ethnicity were thoroughly integrated. You didn’t just change countries, you changed complete identities if you were to become part of the host culture. And my understanding is that with some of these cultures there was no way for outsider to completely join. The ANE “alien” strikes me as something far more set off from the hose culture than in our case.
Don’t know what to make of it. Just pondering it. -
I’ll have to look at the Jacob story again, that’s an interesting case. I think its wise to not rush into typological comparisons between us and the biblical characters here. There is always the danger that we often misplace ourselves in the story, casting ourselves as the hero, when in someways we might be the villain.
But I do sense that with so many stories and references to sojourning individuals and peoples in the OT, its hard to believe the Holy Spirit isn’t trying to burn something into our hearts, as a global body and specifically as US citizens. I’m not quite sure how that works itself out legislatively, but it seems we cannot avoid legislatures on this issue either. Arizona’s specific situation is also complicated by the fact that a ramped up drug war is taking place across borders.
I think one area of this issue we as a nation have not always been honest with ourselves about is the economic consequences. We are profiting, often through the price and availability of goods, and even taxes paid, by illegal immigrant labor. In a sense, illegal may not be the proper word, because we have de facto given them legitimate status in our economic enterprises if not in civil law.
So maybe we need to go to Scripture looking for, among other things, how to understand the ways various peoples and individuals were held to account for the use and misuse of the labor of others. What can these stories tell us the character of our actions should be? Before knowing how to minister in this situation, that’s what I would want to find out. -
I checked Mounce’s Dictionary here is the entry for the Old Testament ger.
“NOUN: Ger is a sojourner or alien in a land. Sojourners are not like foreigners visiting some other country; rather, they have settled in the land for some time and live there, even though they are not native to the area. Abraham was as sojourner in Hebron (Gen. 23:4), Moses in Midian for forty years (Ex 2:22), Emilech and his family in Moab (Ruth 1:1), and the Israelites in Egypt (Exod. 6:4; 22:20).
According to God’s law, aliens in the midst of Israel must be assisted and protected by Israelites (Exod. 22:21, Jer. 7:6), they have right to material access (e.g. gleaning, Lev. 19:10), and they may participate in religious observances (tithe, Deut. 14:29, Sabbath, Deut. 5:14, the Sabbath year. Lev. 25:6; and cities of refuge, Num. 35:15). The identity of God’s people as aliens themselves in Egypt provides a powerful metaphor for the pilgrimage of life (cf. Exod. 23:9). “Hear my prayer, O Lord, and give ear to my cry; do not hold your peace at my tears. For I am your passing guest, an alien, like all my forebearers” (Ps. 39:12)
The ger reminds Israel that the earth belongs to the Lord. “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants.”” (Lev. 25:23). (12)
So I’m curious about how an alien might come to be in the territory. Was there some ritual or custom that made them officially a resident of the community? If not then the distinction between something approximating legal and illegal is moot.
To me, the thrust seems to be about dealing justly with alien … granting them the same rights and obligations as a resident. And the obligations part of that would be to follow the customs and laws. Applying to our day, the law is that you must show papers when crossing the border and cross through a checkpoint. If a person enters via other means how is it being unjust to enforce the laws, unless we are willing to first make the case that border control laws are unjust?
I think it is our lack of enforcement that greatly creates to the exploitation because so many are enticed to cross the border illegally for lucrative opportunities that place them in precarious legal positions. It puts them in the exploitative position of paying things like social security from which they will never see any benefit.
That reform is needed is certain in my book. But I’m still processing the implication of the alien motif. Looking beyond to other issues about be fair to workers is probably right but I don’t think it gets us out of the border question. -
Michael,
Another thought or two.
You said: “To me, the thrust seems to be about dealing justly with alien … granting them the same rights and obligations as a resident. And the obligations part of that would be to follow the customs and laws.”
The latter part of your statement, citing customs and laws, brings to mind an interesting distinction. Our political laws seem to be saying one thing (do not cross the border illegally), and our economic customs seem to be saying another thing (but if you do, I have a job for you). There is a certain amount of hypocrisy in maintaining this sort of double consciousness. It cannot be sustained for long, and it necessitates us making decisions about our priorities.
Another helpful distinction for me about law is that it is there as Paul suggests in Romans, to guard our material security, but it also is there as Torah suggests to guard our innate dignity. In addition to helping us answer the question of whether our law and customs are in agreement, the Church has a role in helping us to question whether the law is both guarding security and dignity.
A different place for the Church to begin posing those questions might be through hospitality and dialogue. We could start holding forums (formal and informal) in our church communities which bring together immigrant advocates, law enforcement and civic officials to share stories of immigrants, crime, etc. and engage in honest discussion and community building exercises. -
I think your point about double-mindedness is spot on. I think concern for the borders and compassion for illegal-immigrants are both legitimate concerns. What is the appropriate balance? It certainly isn’t what we have now.
But in true culture warrior-like fashion we have on sides choosing up with law and justice border folks against the compassion for the marginalize folks, both convinced the other is out perpetrate diabolic evil on society.
I like the forum idea. But the challenge with these forums is that too often the host stacks the deck with experts that will achieve a predetermined outcome. IMO, those events are worse than having not event at all. -
I imagine the ger would just show up. I doubt they had tightly controlled borders.
I’m a little surprised you’re more on the “build a fence” side of this. Because what is a border if not an arbitrary government-planned cap on who can work where? If the economic conditions are such that cheap Mexican labor benefits us (lower prices) and them (better wages), why let a line on a map stand in the way?
As for breaking border laws…those laws are for us, not us for them. I’m not suggesting we wantonly change them without thinking through the consequences as best we can, but some people seem to cross their arms and say “Well, that’s the law”, as if we didn’t make the law and can’t change it whenever the situation calls for it.
I understand Arizonans are rightfully afraid of the gang wars in Mexico spilling over the border. But the way to address that is not to 1) make an underclass of scared laborers by enforcing immigration laws primarily against them, not their employers and 2) creating an atmosphere of such fear and suspicion that anyone Hispanic, or people who might look Hispanic (people of Italian descent?) must carry around their ID at all times. -
“I imagine the ger would just show up. I doubt they had tightly controlled borders.”
I think that is likely true though a ger had to settle someplace where they interacted with the locals. What were the laws and customs that oversaw this status? Abraham at Gerar in Gen 20-21, at Hebron in Gen 23, and Jacob at Shechem in Gen 34 all seem to give some hints at the expected customs concerning immigrants.
As to building the fence, I didn’t spell out my entire view on immigration. First, there needs to be effective boarder control. Second, I favor liberal guest worker programs and less restrictive immigration. The issue is that when people are here illegally it creates many problems. Companies that engage in the practice get an unfair advantage over those that don’t. Illegal workers are without status and vulnerable to all types of abuse.
I confess that one of the things I find irksome in the conversation is the presumption by many who favor open borders that those who want the borders controlled are anti-immigration or … sense in this case we are talking primarily about Mexicans … anti-Mexican (or racist.) The issue is the need for things to be done in an orderly and fair manner so that everyone’s rights can be properly enforced and to filter out elements that use the border for destructive purposes. That is what I’m aiming for. -
Not saying you’re racist. But the Arizona law, in application if not intent, undoubtedly is.
Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply