Evangelical responses to the immigration executive order

[TitanTiger 20,508]

I like Russell Moore's sober and well-reasoned take on it:

Quote

Russell Moore, who leads the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, will send the following letter on Monday morning to President Trump and copy House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Moore’s letter responds to Trump’s executive order on refugees.

Dear President Trump and Vice President Pence,

In June 2016, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirmed its decades-long commitment to care for and minister to refugees. The resolution states, “Scripture calls for and expects God’s people to minister to the sojourner.” Southern Baptist churches throughout the United States lead the way in carrying out this calling.

The church’s commitment to welcoming the stranger has long been reflected in our country’s policies toward those fleeing persecution in their home countries. A commitment given voice through the inscription on our Statute of Liberty, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Indeed, as our country recalled on Friday, one of our nation’s darkest chapters was our refusal to allow European Jews fleeing the Third Reich to find safe harbor on American soil.

As Southern Baptists, we believe the role of government is first and foremost to protect its people from harm. Every sovereign nation has a responsibility to defend its citizens. Our convention’s resolution affirms this, calling for the government to “implement the strictest security measures possible in the refugee screening and selection process” in order to keep Americans safe.

As a nation, we must seek to resolve the tension created by these two values — compassion for the sojourner and the security of our citizens — in a way that upholds both values.

While we know refugees are already the most vetted category of immigrants to the United States, the FBI and others raised legitimate questions about the sufficiency of these procedures. It is crucial these questions be resolved. As a result, we are sympathetic to the desire to strengthen our nation’s security processes.

However, we have concerns about the Executive Order’s consequences. We share the concerns of Representative Mark Walker (R-N.C.), a Southern Baptist lawmaker, who said, “The language of the order should not apply to legal permanent residents of the United States, and if it is being enforced in any other way, the administration should step in swiftly to clarify.”

Preventing the Iraqi interpreters who served our military — crucial allies in the fight against global terrorism — from seeking refuge in the very country they risked their lives and the lives of their families to serve is unacceptable.

We understand the Department of Homeland Security, Justice Department, State Department, Department of Defense, and National Security Council legal counsel were not adequately consulted before the implementation of the order. We join with Southern Baptist Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.), who stated, “This executive action has some unintended consequences that were not well thought out.”

Southern Baptists are among the many Americans living in majority-Muslim countries to carry out the biblical call to love their neighbors. We are deeply concerned that the order will cause widespread diplomatic fallout with the Muslim world, putting Southern Baptists serving in these countries in grave danger and preventing them from serving refugees and others who are in need with humanitarian assistance and the love of the gospel.

Achieving the right balance between compassion toward refugees — one of the most vulnerable groups of people among us — and protection of Americans is crucial if the United States is to remain a model for freedom around the world. It is one thing to debate whether the vetting process is adequate. It is quite another to seek to potentially turn our backs on Syrian refugees permanently.

As such, I call upon your Administration to:

Clarify, through a rigorous interagency review and coordination, the extent of the Executive Order to resolve the status of green card holders, Iraqi military interpreters, and other ambiguities;

Implement additional screening measures in order that the Refugee Admission Program may be resumed as soon as possible, including for refugees from Syria;

Work to ensure the safety of Americans serving in majority-Muslim countries and to preserve their ability to continue serving the “least of these” in the region; and

Affirm your administration’s commitment to religious freedom and the inalienable human dignity of persecuted people whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Yazidi or other, and adjust the Executive Order as necessary.

Finally, assimilation into American life is crucial for both the security of our existing citizens and the well-being of refugee families. Christian churches and other faith communities have proven their unique ability to facilitate such adjustments. Southern Baptists know that our responsibility is to care for and serve refugees here in the United States and around the world, and we remain committed to that mission.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Moore

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/01/30/exclusive-the-letter-russell-moore-will-send-trump-about-the-refugee-order/?utm_term=.9bdeac2cfd9e

 

[TitanTiger 20,508]

I also find Ed Stetzer's voice to be one of reason.

 

Quote

Evangelicals, we cannot let alternative facts drive U.S. refugee policy
By Ed Stetzer January 26
 
We have quickly seen that candidate Trump and President Trump are one and the same.

Last Friday’s inaugural address communicated that our new president intended to make good on the statements he made at rallies across the country. And of all of the promises Trump vowed to keep once he became president of the United States, a commitment to “make America safe again” was a continual narrative.

His tweet late Tuesday came as a vow to fulfill those promises on the campaign trail.

Several drafts have been leaked of “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals.” One draft copy, now widely distributed (and reported on here in the Washington Post), is eight pages long and puts many new policies in place, most notably a 120-day moratorium on the Refugee Admissions Program, a dramatic cut of the overall number of refugees allowed into the U.S. this year, and an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria, with the suggestion that refugees from additional countries will also likely be barred.

Like many people, I agree with Trump that we need a greater focus on national security and a more clear engagement in the war against radical Islamism. Furthermore, I believe that good people can have strong (and divergent) views on border security and other issues.

However, in this case, I’m concerned that the president is operating on generated fear rather than facts. We need a better way.

In the flurry of Trump’s campaign, his promise resonated well in the ears of many Americans who were seeking safety, fearful of the rise of terrorism in our world today.

Fear is a real emotion, and it can cause us to make decisions we wouldn’t have otherwise made. Fear leads us to fix our eyes inward instead of on the “other.” But, as I’ve written before, at the core of who we are as followers of Christ is a commitment to care for the vulnerable, the marginalized, the abused and the wanderer.

Today, millions of people have had to flee home, safety, family and livelihood due to threats of violence. In fact, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency UNHCR, 1 in every 113 people in our world today has been forcibly displaced from their homes. And each one of these refugees has a name and story.

As fear overcomes us, our ability to see facts clearly also dims. We need clear facts on the issue, not alternative erroneous ones, when it comes to refugees. “Alternative facts” can have incredibly harmful consequences for people made in the image of God who are seeking refuge from violence, oppression and poverty.

And, here’s an important fact: coming to the United States as a refugee would be one of the worst ways to try and get in our country if you wanted to do harm. There is simply no evidence that our refugee program has created a significant problem of terrorism. Anyone saying anything else is making up false facts.

We are in what will be, according to former Obama CIA Director Leon Panetta, a decades-long war with radical Islamism. However, refugees are not causing the violence. They are the ones fleeing it. Almost all recent terrorist attacks in our own nation have come from long-term residents or citizens, not new refugees.

Americans are debating these facts, but incorrect — alternative — facts lead to bad decisions. That’s what’s happening here.

So how should evangelicals respond to the ban on refugees?

 

First, we must continue to reject false facts.

Evangelicals today desperately need truth. We need to find it in the Bible, and we need to find it in the world around us. Facts are our friends, and we have to look for them. In this case, the data is out there for us to see — if fear has not blinded us to real facts.

The Cato Institute published a very thorough risk analysis on terrorism and immigration that tells us that the odds of an American citizen being killed by a refugee-turned-terrorist is 1 in 3.64 billion per year. New America also compiled a profile that shows us the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts in the U.S. did not come from foreign infiltrators. These are the types of statistics that we need to know before we start shutting our doors to those who need help.

 

Second, we need to recapture a vision of what it means that all are made in God’s image.

I’m pro-life because the unborn are made in the image of God, as are refugees. So, I’m pro-refugee because I am pro-life. When we remember that all people are made in the image of God, we might just see refugees differently, an idea that aligns with the values Americans have held dear, including the past several Republican presidents.

Scott Arbeiter, president of World Relief, says it this way: “The decision to restrict all entry of refugees and other immigrants … contradicts the American tradition of welcoming families who come to the United States to start their lives again in safety and dignity. The American people — most of whom can trace their own families’ stories through a similar immigrant journey in search of freedom — are a hospitable people.”

He’s right. But, it’s not just because we are Americans. It’s because we are Christians.

God’s people should be the first ones to open their arms to refugees. We should welcome them and do what Christians, in your church and mine, have been doing a long time — showing and sharing the love of Jesus with them.

 

Finally, we must fight for those without a voice.

Trump’s executive order means that the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program will be suspended for approximately four months, and when it begins again, it will likely not be the same. I certainly understand the struggle with fear in our current climate, but I imagine that there are many people on the other side of the world who have experienced fear like you or I have not seen. And they have just been told they have nowhere to turn.

As an American citizen, I cannot change this Executive Order. But as a Christian and kingdom citizen, I cannot cheer for it, and I cannot stay silent. It is time to pray for those who are hurting, and to plead with our leaders to change course.

We are not Europe and refugees can’t walk here. We have a well-run and safe refugee resettlement program with a long history of religious group involvement. And as an evangelical and a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals, I am thankful for its statement supporting refugee resettlement. But, I will add that I am deeply disappointed to see this safe program maligned and discounted by others who use alternative facts to say that it is dangerous in ways it is not

As Americans who are also Christian, we often cry out, “God bless the United States!” Fear cannot lead us to the point where our only cry left is, “May God have mercy on our souls!”

This is a safe program and one that evangelicals like me say, even if Trump will not, “Give [us] your … huddled masses, yearning to be free.”

Alternative facts must not lead us to bad choices that hurt the most vulnerable — that’s not the way of Jesus and not in line with actual facts.

Ed Stetzer hold the Billy Graham Distinguished Chair at Wheaton College, and recently hosted an evangelical summit on refugee ministry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/01/26/evangelicals-we-cannot-let-alternative-facts-drive-u-s-refugee-policy/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.65921ffeb8a5

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I respect the different views but what is demonstrated is that religious leaders aren't in 100% agreement either so it's no different than in here. They just express their views more eloquently. I grew up Southern Baptist so I do respect Mr. Moore's views. However he has no authority over what individual Baptist Churches or their members think. Robert Jeffress, pastor of 1st in Dallas has long been a Trump supporter as has Jerry Falwell, Jr. So one can find one to support their own viewpoint. I just like Rev. Franklin Graham and his Samaritan's Purse charity helping people all over the world, including in Muslim countries.

[AUDub 11,164]

Great responses. Many others are speaking out as well. OK if we post them here as they come up?

Quote

Statement of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, on the Executive Order on Refugees and Migrants

January 29, 2017

This weekend proved to be a dark moment in U.S. history. The executive order to turn away refugees and to close our nation to those, particularly Muslims, fleeing violence, oppression and persecution is contrary to both Catholic and American values.  Have we not repeated the disastrous decisions of those in the past who turned away other people fleeing violence, leaving certain ethnicities and religions marginalized and excluded? We Catholics know that history well, for, like others, we have been on the other side of such decisions.

These actions impose a sweeping and immediate halt on migrants and refugees from several countries, people who are suffering, fleeing for their lives. Their design and implementation have been rushed, chaotic, cruel and oblivious to the realities that will produce enduring security for the United States. They have left people holding valid visas and other proper documents detained in our airports, sent back to the places some were fleeing or not allowed to board planes headed here. Only at the eleventh hour did a federal judge intervene to suspend this unjust action.

We are told this is not the “Muslim ban” that had been proposed during the presidential campaign, but these actions focus on Muslim-majority countries. They make an exception for Christians and non-Muslim minorities, but not for Muslims refugees fleeing for their lives. Ironically, this ban does not include the home country of 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers. Yet, people from Iraq, even those who assisted our military in a destructive war, are excluded.

The United States has a long history of welcoming refugees who are fleeing for their lives and Catholic organizations have helped to resettle many families, men, women, and children, from around the globe. Many of our priests, religious and laypeople have accompanied newcomers precisely to assist them in this process. Because of our history of aiding in refugee and migrant settlement for decades, we know the very lengthy and thorough vetting process they must face before they are admitted to our country. We have seen initial fear turn into a generous willingness of local communities to accept and integrate refugees. Here in Chicago generations of migrants have found a new home. We are better for it.

The world is watching as we abandon our commitments to American values. These actions give aid and comfort to those who would destroy our way of life. They lower our estimation in the eyes of the many peoples who want to know America as a defender of human rights and religious liberty, not a nation that targets religious populations and then shuts its doors on them.

It is time to put aside fear and join together to recover who we are and what we represent to a world badly in need of hope and solidarity. “If we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities.” Pope Francis issued these challenging words to Congress in 2015, and followed with a warning that should haunt us as we come to terms with the events of the weekend: “The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us.”

 

[TitanTiger 20,508]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I respect the different views but what is demonstrated is that religious leaders aren't in 100% either so it's no different than in here. They just express their views more eloquently.

Perhaps it's not so much "eloquence" as it is that they demonstrate a more thorough treatment of the subject, offering more facts and less emotion; more scriptural basis and less reaction.

 

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I grew up Southern Baptist so I do respect Mr. Moore's views. However he has no authority over what individual Baptist Churches or their members think. Robert Jeffress, pastor of 1st in Dallas has long been a Trump supporter as has Jerry Falwell, Jr. So one can find one to support their own viewpoint. I just like Rev. Franklin Graham and his Samaritan's Purse charity helping people all over the world, including in Muslim countries.

I wasn't suggesting he had the authority to tell Baptist churches what to do.  But I did think it was particularly relevant given that the SBC is one of the most conservative branches of Evangelicalism in the country.  This isn't some theological liberal from The Episcopal Church or the Unitarians pointing this out.

[TexasTiger 12,978]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Perhaps it's not so much "eloquence" as it is that they demonstrate a more thorough treatment of the subject, offering more facts and less emotion; more scriptural basis and less reaction.

 

I wasn't suggesting he had the authority to tell Baptist churches what to do.  But I did think it was particularly relevant given that the SBC is one of the most conservative branches of Evangelicalism in the country.  This isn't some theological liberal from The Episcopal Church or the Unitarians pointing this out.

That's what I found somewhat surprising, too. Thoughtful response. Leadership.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

Ed Stetzer is no theological liberal either.  He's a regular contributor at Christianity Today, the largest Evangelical publication around.

Interestingly enough, he is also Southern Baptist.  Works for Lifeway, one of the largest publishers of Christian resources in the world and an arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.  He got his MDiv at Liberty University.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Perhaps it's not so much "eloquence" as it is that they demonstrate a more thorough treatment of the subject, offering more facts and less emotion; more scriptural basis and less reaction.

 

I wasn't suggesting he had the authority to tell Baptist churches what to do.  But I did think it was particularly relevant given that the SBC is one of the most conservative branches of Evangelicalism in the country.  This isn't some theological liberal from The Episcopal Church or the Unitarians pointing this out.

^^^^like

[AUUSN 823]

Outstanding articles. I believe if we do what God commands us re: refugees, he will protect us. Does that mean we'll never have future terrorist attacks? Of course not. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

The letter from the Southern Baptist leaders recognize both sides of the issue. The need to improve vetting while still fulfilling the meaning of the writing on the Statue of Liberty and fulfilling our Christian values. It is not an easy task and while I in principal approve of what Trump was trying to do like the Baptist leaders there needs to be clarification on people who have green cards or who have helped our country.

My wife of 30 years is an immigrant from El Salvador and many years ago she had to go through the vetting process to get her green card part of this process is a background from the country of origin. This is a key part as it checks for known criminal record and whether the person has been involved with subversive groups. The country's on the list that was actually put together during the Obama administration are fractured and it is almost impossible to get a verifiable background check from these country's.

I have no problem on a moratorium for these countries while we try and put together a better vetting process. That said we also must be sure that people who should be allowed to come with legitimate Visa's, green cards, who have worked with the US and are in danger are allowed to continue to come.  There maybe other exceptions also that should be discussed.

 

[homersapien 11,415]

I don't see where the current vetting system was seriously broken.  It has been improved and continues to be improved but it was working just fine.  A moratorium is not needed.

This is primarily political theater by Trump pandering to his base.  He didn't - and doesn't - care how it may affect individuals nor does he care about how it may affect our strategic interests.  

It's good politics for Trump in the short term.  That's all that matters to him. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't see where the current vetting system was seriously broken.  It has been improved and continues to be improved but it was working just fine.  A moratorium is not needed.

This is primarily political theater by Trump pandering to his base.  He didn't - and doesn't - care how it may affect individuals nor does he care about how it may affect our strategic interests.  

It's good politics for Trump in the short term.  That's all that matters to him. 

The vetting process has been improved but the key issue is the local check as an example in Yemen they are in a Civil War depending on where you live in Yemen the de-facto government is different it can be the Houthi Rebel group or the kind of recognized government group supported by the Saudi's who would do the background check and how would we know if it was really done properly, similar issue in Syria, Iraq, and Somalia. When my wife decided to become a US citizen we could of  done everything remotely but we went back to El Salvador to visit her family we took the required papers with us and went by the courthouse where the process was started after a couple of weeks we had a document showing that she had been checked out by the National and local governments and she was given a clean bill of health. A lot of the infrastructure that was used in El Salvador to do this type of check has been destroyed in the countries on the list or are in the hands of non-government groups so how can they provide a check on that persons activities in those countries.

It is a balancing act and I don't think anybody has the correct answer. There is no doubt that the great majority of good people who are refugees will be hurt by a moratorium but as we have seen in Europe the bad guys have used refugee programs to sneak people in and then attack those countries. I am hoping that it is just  a moratorium and if they find some way to continue to allow some refugees from this area to come in that we can do it. The majority of the refugees that Obama brought in were mothers with children the reality this group is probably pretty safe especially if we are talking about young children. I don't see why we couldn't continue with this type of refugee not totally fair but probably the best we can do.

The majority of these refugees want to come here for a variety of reasons but the number one reason is it is not safe for them and their families in their country the real solution is to make their countries safe and I have no idea how to do that and I don't think anybody else does either.

[homersapien 11,415]

52 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

The vetting process has been improved but the key issue is the local check as an example in Yemen they are in a Civil War depending on where you live in Yemen the de-facto government is different it can be the Houthi Rebel group or the kind of recognized government group supported by the Saudi's who would do the background check and how would we know if it was really done properly, similar issue in Syria, Iraq, and Somalia. When my wife decided to become a US citizen we could of  done everything remotely but we went back to El Salvador to visit her family we took the required papers with us and went by the courthouse where the process was started after a couple of weeks we had a document showing that she had been checked out by the National and local governments and she was given a clean bill of health. A lot of the infrastructure that was used in El Salvador to do this type of check has been destroyed in the countries on the list or are in the hands of non-government groups so how can they provide a check on that persons activities in those countries.

It is a balancing act and I don't think anybody has the correct answer. There is no doubt that the great majority of good people who are refugees will be hurt by a moratorium but as we have seen in Europe the bad guys have used refugee programs to sneak people in and then attack those countries. I am hoping that it is just  a moratorium and if they find some way to continue to allow some refugees from this area to come in that we can do it. The majority of the refugees that Obama brought in were mothers with children the reality this group is probably pretty safe especially if we are talking about young children. I don't see why we couldn't continue with this type of refugee not totally fair but probably the best we can do.

The majority of these refugees want to come here for a variety of reasons but the number one reason is it is not safe for them and their families in their country the real solution is to make their countries safe and I have no idea how to do that and I don't think anybody else does either.

If there are particular problems associated with particular situations why not address those individually?

We are cutting off our nose to spite our face.  We are allowing fear to attenuate our strength - diversity.