As someone who favors minimal restriction of the freedom of movement, I am greatly concerned about the President's recent executive order. But the most problematic part of the order, and the part to which I wish to react, is found in Section 5c, which prohibits entry to Syrian refugees “until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the [United States Refugee Assistance Program] to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.” Although apologists may assert this rhetoric demonstrates reasonable caution, the wording really carries the same permanence as a normal piece of legislation. In other words, this section contains the one permanent policy in the executive order, and it is directed against the people group most desperate for a land to receive them.
Though the United States has long been “a proud nation of immigrants,” as the President himself has said, we have long been suspicious of “the other.” Since the Syrian crisis began in 2011, the US has accepted fewer than 2,000 Syrian refugees, with the vast majority of that number entering over the course of 2016. Western nations have declared sympathy for Syrian refugees, but few nations have pursued the responsibility of hosting them.
Jesus told his disciples that a decision to ignore the hungry, the strangers, the poor, or the ill is a decision to ignore God himself, and a decision to assist them is a decision to serve God. The heroes of the Bible almost always had some form of reason to fear unknown people—after all, Jesus did warn them that the world would hate them because of him—but that fear should not, could not, and did not overcome the necessity of welcoming the stranger. For that reason, Scripture consistently emphasizes not only the goodness but also the necessity of hospitality.
President Trump’s decision to indefinitely prohibit Syrian refugee entry into the United States is bad enough as a political move. It is based on bad management and faulty information. Even if his assertions were correct, though, the policy cannot be excused according to the ethical mandates Christ has bestowed upon us.
The Christian response, of course, may be hazier to determine. Christians should certainly pray and be involved in the political process to help advance good decisions and good leaders. In response to the refugee policy specifically, however, Christians must avoid creating more exclusion than has already been created. It seems each time I open social media I find disdain and fear not unlike Trump’s from his opponents, though they are obviously directed elsewhere. On Sunday, Twitter’s leading hashtag was #deleteUber, a movement that arose from an outrage over Uber’s decision to continue servicing at normal pricing at JFK Airport, particularly because the Muslim-majority NYC taxi drivers union was striking over the executive order. Of course, people are free and should be free to support the businesses they choose. But this boycott reveals to me a dangerous passion among my generation. We have an ideal for a society of acceptance and tolerance, but we seem to have no ability to constructively handle failures in achieving that goal. In recent years, we have become quite used to the idea that being tolerant is just something people do, something natural to human nature. Now, when someone practices acts of exclusion, we treat them as subhuman.
Few of us have the ability to make a notable impact on legislation, but we all have influence over those around us. To truly be a city on a hill, Christians must be kind in the midst of hatred. We must be patient in the midst of rage. We must be peacemakers in the midst of violence.
For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.
2 Timothy 1:7
Comments
Post a Comment