Immigration and social ethics
Blessed Bernard was an immigrant
Blessed Bernard Mizeki was an immigrant. He moved from Mozambique to Cape Town and later to Mashonaland (now now southern Zimbabwe). In Cape Town he took instruction from the monks of the Society of St John the Evangelist and was baptized. In Mashonaland he made a home, served as a lay catechist, and was martyred. There is an article by Jesse Zink, “Anglican Theology in the Midst of a Migration Crisis” published by Cambridge University Press in 2019. The piece looks at the “tension between place and displacement, guest and host, journey and destination.” “Bernard Mizeki … is a representative of a much larger whole, namely African Anglicanism and African Christianity more generally. For Mizeki, migration led to religious change – he was baptized in Cape Town, not Mozambique – and this change led to further evangelism, mission, and church growth. This story is told time and again around the Anglican Communion.”
“These people are suffering. The Bishop has put me here: here I must stay. I cannot leave my people now in a time of such darkness.”
Blessed Bernard was an immigrant.
We believe that the material below fairly represents the mainstream thinking of a number of religious groups. Please offer additional material in the comments.
Anglican social ethics and immigration
Let’s begin with the broader matter of how Christian ethics is best nurtured in us. The starting place is worship. We experience something of the Divine Life in worship and that then flows into our believing and our ethics. Underhill has it right when she wrote, “One’s first duty is adoration, and one’s second duty is awe and only one’s third duty is service. And that for those three things and nothing else, addressed to God and no one else, you and I and all other countless human creatures evolved upon the surface of this planet were created.” And one of Anglicanism’s greatest ethicists, Kenneth Kirk wrote in The Vision of God, “the doctrine…has throughout been interpreted by Christian thought at its best as implying in practice that the highest prerogative of the Christian, in this life and the next, is worship; and that nowhere except in this activity will he find the key to his ethical problems.” MORE
There shall be for you and the resident alien a single statute, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; you and the alien shall be alike before the Lord. You and the alien who resides with you shall have the same law and the same ordinance (Numbers 15:15-16).
The Episcopal Church has an Office of Government Relations based in Washington, D.C. Yes, we have a lobby. “OGR aims to influence policy and legislation on critical issues, highlighting the voices and experiences of Episcopalians and Anglicans globally.” It works at social ethics based on the policy positions of General Convention and Executive Council. Fair enough. The staff has the educational background and experience you’d expect and desire. We couldn’t, though, find anything on the OGR website that suggested the office works from an understanding of the relationship between worship and action. Of course, the absence of an explicit mention about the connection doesn’t mean it isn’t present. Still, it would be an improvement to see the OGR’s own material clearly express that its work was grounded in the worship of God, as well as the official statements of church legislators. Okay, that said, what does OGR advocate around immigration?
The “Episcopal Church Statement on Immigration Reform” begins with, “The Episcopal Church champions and advocates for humane policy towards migrants because of our belief that every human being is a child of God and must be treated with dignity. The Church has advocated for comprehensive immigration reform as an essential part of our call to love our neighbor as ourselves.” This beginning is the usual starting place having to do with people being in the Divine image and respect for human dignity. The statement goes on to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. It does acknowledge the political reality that Congress is unlikely to pass into law all the wishes of the Episcopal Church. There’s a list of specific matters OGR would like Congress to address, such as treating migrants with respect, and creating a pathway to citizenship for the “Dreamers.”
We find ourselves in sympathy with just about all of it. Our one concern is a broad statement pushing for “pathways to citizenship” and “full social and economic integration” for people living here without legal immigration status. There’s a page summarizing the Church’s official statements. There’s a Pastoral Letter from the House of Bishops in 2010 that includes this: “Holy Scripture teaches us that all human beings are made in the image of God, and that Jesus Christ gave his life for all people. Furthermore, both the Old and New Testaments declare the importance of hospitality to resident alien and strangers, a hospitality that rests on our common humanity. All human beings are therefore deserving of dignity and respect, as we affirm in our Baptismal Covenant (Book of Common Prayer, p.305). So our gracious welcome of immigrants, documented or undocumented, is a reflection of God’s grace poured out on us and on all.”
The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 19:34
There is a broad consensus in the Anglican tradition that we are to welcome the stranger and challenge hostile approaches to asylum seekers. The Church of England has a useful statement of guidance for clergy that begins with, “The Bible tells many stories of God working through people on the move. In Genesis 12, God sends Abraham to “the land that I will show you” and Abraham leaves home without knowing where he is going. The foundational story of the Exodus; the life of Ruth; the flight into Egypt of the infant Jesus; and the scattering of the early Church in Acts 8 are some of the ways in which we see God’s purposes fulfilled in the midst of flight from famine, oppression and persecution.”
All this aligns with the positions of most Christian bodies, as you can see below.
For wherever you go, I will go. And wherever you lodge, I will lodge. Your people is my people, and your god is my god. Wherever you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. So may the LORD do to me or even more, for only death will part you and me. (Ruth 1: 16-17, Alter’s translation)
Other Christian traditions
Roman Catholic
Pope Francis is from an immigrant family. They went to Argentina in 1929 from Italy. During the dictatorship of Gorge Rafael Videla, Francis assisted Argentine opponents of the regime, hiding them and helping them flee to Brazil.
“What is clearly true, and what the Church and many others have called for, is the urgent need for a comprehensive reform of our country’s immigration system. The U.S. immigration system is overly complex and unjust, often keeping family members apart; it must be fixed.” —Statement of the USCCB Administrative Committee (March 17, 2022). A statement on Catholic Elements of Immigration Reform offers six elements:
Enforcement efforts should be targeted, proportional, and humane
Humanitarian protections and due process should be ensured
Long-time residents should have an earned pathway to citizenship
Family unity should remain a cornerstone of the U.S. system
Legal pathways should be expanded, reliable, and efficient
The root causes of forced migration should be addressed
Every migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance - Pope Benedict
From John XXIII, through Paul VI and Benedict, to Francis, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized that governments have a right to control immigration and at the same time should observe the general principle of freedom of movement.
The Church without frontiers, Mother to all, spreads throughout the world a culture of acceptance and solidarity, in which no one is seen as useless, out of place, or disposable.” Pope Francis
Eastern Orthodox
“This question puts me in mind of St. Paul’s letter to the Hebrews in which he reminds us not to forget hospitality because those who offer it have sometimes hosted angels without knowing it, … Hospitality represents a concrete example of love for our neighbor and the way all Christians should live their lives.…At this historic time and with the way the refugee crisis is developing, those people who can exercise influence have to work in this spirit.” - Patriarch Bartholomew
Let us look beyond the terminology, refugees-migrants-asylum seekers-internally displaced peoples; let us look beyond the colour of their skin, the creed or faith they adhere to; and let us see the eyes of God’s human creation, transforming these crises to an opportunity for building bridges, for practicing solidarity, for changing hearts. - Address by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the Global Refugee Forum
“It is for the church to say now that immigrants make America great, that this is a nation of immigrants, and that life here is the dream of many decent hardworking people and families. It is for the church to say that mass deportation of immigrants is unjust and inhumane. Planning to arrest people in churches is indecent, unjust, and inhumane. Planning to apprehend children in schools is indecent, unjust, and inhumane. Immigration raids in hospitals, workplaces, and homes is unjust and indecent. Planning to place suspected immigrants in concentration camps violates every standard of compassion, justice, and decency.” - Bishops' Synod of the Orthodox Catholic Church of America. January 2025.
Evangelical
[We] affirm the inherent dignity and value of immigrants and refugees, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, culture, national origin, or legal status; we ask our government leaders to provide clear guidance for immigrants and asylum seekers regarding border policies, legal entry into this country, and work opportunities; we implore our government leaders to maintain robust avenues for valid asylum claimants seeking refuge and to create legal pathways to permanent status for immigrants who are in our communities by no fault of their own, prioritizing the unity of families; we encourage elected officials to prioritize measures that secure our borders and to provide adequate resources to border patrol and those working in our immigration system; we ensure that the language and manner in which we discuss immigration policies and practices recognize and promote the dignity and value of all human beings, including those in our society with differing views and those who seek to come to this nation as migrants[.]” –Sections from “On Wisely Engaging Immigration,” a Southern Baptist Statement.
Other traditions
Muslim
“The Qur’an speaks of the migration experiences of many prophets prior to Islam, such as Adam, Abraham, Lot, Jonah, Jacob, and Moses. Since Adam, the father of humanity, migrated from heaven to earth, the tradition of Islam considers all human beings as immigrants. Therefore, the primordial fatherland of humanity is heaven, while the earth is a place for temporary relocation. This view seems to be dominant in the sayings of the Prophet as well. He likens himself to a traveler who stays for a short time to rest under the shade of a tree and then continues on his journey.” The Qur’anic Perspective on Immigrants: Prophet Muhammad’s Migration and Its Implications in Our Modern Society
The stranger is blind even if he has eyes -Arabic statement
Islamic nations usually have a different approach to immigration then we see in western democracies. Like many nations they often have guest worker systems, however the pathway to citizenship usually requires being or becoming a Muslim. The "Hijrah" tradition is concerned with the movement of Muslims from areas of persecution to the safety of Islamic nations where they can safely practice their religion.
However, some make the case that this has more to do with politics than being a matter of religion. “We observe an amount of commonality in the Muslim states’ naturalisation practice with a tendency to exclude the outsider. However, a more careful look already suggests more consideration of politics in the discrimination.” (CHAPTER 8 How do Muslim States Treat their “Outsiders”?: Is Islamic Practice of Naturalisation Synonymous with Jus Sanguinis?)
Jewish
Jewish Ethics Regarding Refugees: Ideology and Realization begins with this, “…According to Jewish ethics, help must be offered to refugees of a foreign people, and sometimes, for the sake of peace, even to those of an enemy state. Reviewing the Jewish sources, I conclude that from an ethical point of view, preference should be given to refugees who are near the border over those from farther away. Priority must be given to those in acute distress who lack the basic items of sustenance. Sometimes there is a special value in finding a way to assist even one's enemies in the hope that such help will break down the barriers of hatred. Similarly, it is ethically preferable to offer help to blameless children over adults, whose intentions might be suspect.”
Every Jew has the right to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen. Anyone born within the nation is a citizen if at least one parent is a citizen. Non-Jewish immigrants can naturalize once a permanent resident and living in Israel for three years. They must learn to speak Hebrew. About 20% of Israeli citizens are not Jewish.
The right of nations to restrict immigration
“A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration” (Website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops). “Because there seems to be no end to poverty, war, and misery in the world, developed nations will continue to experience pressure from many peoples who desire to resettle in their lands. Catholic social teaching is realistic: While people have the right to move, no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized. For this reason, Catholics should not view the work of the federal government and its immigration control as negative or evil. Those who work to enforce our nation's immigration laws often do so out of a sense of loyalty to the common good and compassion for poor people seeking a better life. In an ideal world, there would be no need for immigration control. The Church recognizes that this ideal world has not yet been achieved.”
… be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Matthew 10:16
In the House of Bishops Pastoral Letter in 2010 they noted, “We acknowledge the duty of governments to protect their people, including the securing of borders. The church has always respected this duty, which is grounded in government’s God-given duty to protect innocent people and punish wrongdoers (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17).” And the guidance offered to the Church of England clergy included this: “This is not to say that there should be no borders. Precious resources must be stewarded carefully and the impact of rapid, unplanned or under-resourced social and economic change on settled communities matters to God too.”
Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host country, respecting its laws and its national identity. - Pope Benedict
There are a number of elements to this “right of nations.” Countries may legitimately be concerned about maintaining national identity and cultural integration. When poorly managed we see social tensions emerge, even violence. There are also impacts on the wages and job security of existing citizens. National security can be threatened if large numbers of immigrants enter with anti-democracy beliefs and occasionally with terroristic intent. There may also be an unreasonable strain on public services, which we’ve seen recently in a number of American cities.
Where social ethics takes place
It is in the lives and decisions of the baptized that the most difficult struggles occur. Americans seeking examples can look at presidents and senators, governors and mayors, the members of a city council. These are the people who stand in the tension between mercy and the common good, justice and popular opinion.
Bishop Budde said, “Nor does God spare us from the consequences of our deeds, which always in the end matter more than the words we pray.” What comes to mind is how President Biden came to office committed to ending what he saw as the harsh and unreasonable immigration policies of President Trump. During Biden’s term we saw a record number of undocumented/illegal asylum seekers and other migrants. What can be seen as an over-correction to the previous four years appears to be part of the reason we have now returned to an aggressive and in some cases cruel set of actions. It’s true that if the attempt at a bipartisan bill had passed Congress - stopped by Donald Trump’s pressure - the election might have turned out differently. Maybe. But it remains that Joe Biden engaged in practices that have brought on a backlash. Here’s a summary from David Leonhardt’s NYT report:
Most citizens support mass deportations, especially of those in the country illegally.
We are not comfortable with many of the ways President Trump wants to go about it, such as use of the military and deporting those who came as children.
Americans strongly support deporting those who came illegally and have criminal records.
We’re likely to see the polls shifting about as specific actions by the administration are taken. For example, one recent poll suggests strong support for troops being sent to the border and more division in regard to deporting people already in the country. Another poll indicates overall support for the new president on immigration by 55 - 40 percent.
As the Roman Catholic bishops put it, “In an ideal world, there would be no need for immigration control. The Church recognizes that this ideal world has not yet been achieved.” That world is the complete reign of Christ and not something simply brought about if only we were better people and tried harder. Utopian solutions usually have unforeseen consequences. It is the task of Christian political leaders to work within the tension between the right of migrants to sustain their life and the right of nations to restrict immigration. And within that tension there is public opinion that always comes into play.
Mercy, grace, justice, and compassion are among the virtues in play. So are the ability to accept paradox, humility, the courage to make decisions that may be in a field between bad and very bad, a sense of balance grounded in an awareness of complex situations, prudence or having good sense and practical judgment and wisdom.
We have become accustomed to pronouncements from the church, sermons and press releases from church leaders, as well as pronouncements appearing in books and articles. We are told the “correct” position for the Christian. Episcopal News Service recently reported statements from the Presiding Bishop and the Roman Catholic Conference of Bishops.
Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe expressed his concern and commitment about a cut off in federal funds for our refugee resettlement ministry and went on to offer an affirmation of our usual position about immigration, “As Christians, our faith is shaped by the biblical story of people whom God led into foreign countries to escape oppression, and no change in political fortunes can dissuade us from answering God’s call to welcome the stranger.” Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop said, “Some provisions contained in the executive orders, such as those focused on the treatment of immigrants and refugees, foreign aid, expansion of the death penalty, and the environment, are deeply troubling and will have negative consequences, many of which will harm the most vulnerable among us.” Good stuff, yes? Exactly right, yes?
We don’t see anything wrong with such statements in themselves. We would suggest that the problem is a lack of attention to engaging political leaders, and future political leaders, in forums in which these issues are engaged with actual listening, including stances of humility and respect. The problem is when pronouncements are the the primary method of engagement we have. By their very one-sidedness, pronouncements can veer into arrogance and irrelevance, and increase the divide between practitioners and church leaders.
After the Second World War many of the churches in Europe arranged what we believe were called lay academies. These were opportunities for the laity to consider issues of social ethics in relationship to their field. The World Council of Churches conducted an action-reflection study on “The Role of Christians within Changing Institutions: Studies on Humanization and Mission.” The Roman Catholic Church engaged the same theme in John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris. Under the heading of “Scientific Competence, Technical Capacity and Professional Experience,” the encyclical stated, “it is not enough for [Christians] to be illumined by the heavenly light of faith and to be fired with enthusiasm for a cause; they must involve themselves in the work of…institutions, and strive to influence them effectively from within.”
A network of industrial missions was established in the US. The most famous was the Detroit Industrial Mission, working with the auto makers and the United Auto Workers. Robert worked with Metropolitan Associates of Philadelphia (MAP) conducting action research on how Christians might influence the institutions in which they worked. Laity working in fields such as health, local government, banking, and education would meet to support one another in their efforts to sort the ethical issues and better understand how institutions change.
More recently, Michelle often helps executives and employees of financial services companies reflect on their ethical choices and the ways in which their stated values either conflict with their behavior or don’t provide enough support for difficult decisions. While her efforts are purely secular, she has noticed that it is often companies run by people of faith who are most interested in this way of coming at ethical concerns.
Would the church benefit from less exhortation from above and more support for the laity as they seek to serve within the institutions of the nation? Could we benefit from gatherings that bring together the practitioners and the thinkers? We know that Reinhold Niebuhr was a major influence on Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, John McCain, and Martin Luther King. Might we give more structure to that? Lay academies for our time. Occasions of humility and collaboration in which people in government, maybe especially those with a few years in their positions, could come into contact with the best social ethics thinkers of our time. (See the list of religious ethicists in this article)
In our parishes, we could focus our book studies in two fields: spiritual practice and social ethics. In the first case, offering the wisdom of our traditional practices, and in the second, beginning with the assumption that it is the laity who must do the sorting out. In the first attending to Underhill’s adoration and awe and in the second with true service. That means avoiding books with a narrow ideological tilt. This can be challenging to recognize. Many Christian social ethicists, for example, believe that totalitarian governments can undermine the demands of human dignity and individual conscience. That’s a broad ideological tilt and can be contrasted with the narrow tilt of writers insisting on the correctness of specific policies or candidates, or broadly condemning groups of fellow citizens as particularly evil because of their policy or candidate preferences. Here’s one way to test it: How much does the writer help you think about and challenge your own choices and habits of mind, including where you’re a bit muddled or careless, or a bit too certain? If you mostly feel affirmed for the righteousness of your views, or judged for how wrong they are, there’s a good chance it has a narrow ideological tilt.
Parish clergy could be a little more humble in their preaching. Before making pronouncements on the major issues of the age, they might do some research that exposes them to a variety of reasonable, wise, moral approaches to the issue. That might include noting how Christians may in good conscience differ about the best way forward in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Haiti, and yes, immigration in the United States.
Another arena is in media and journalism where we see narratives being created that offer just part of the story. Reporting that is focused on facts friendly to one side or another in the immigration debate. The concept of “heresy” is a useful religious analogy, in which some aspect of the truth is offered as though it is the complete truth. One recent example here in Seattle has been the arrest of a number of illegal/undocumented immigrants who have a record of sexual assault. Some sources are simply stressing the arrest and possible deportation of immigrants, without any mention of the criminal behavior. Might journalism be another field in which lay academies might be held?
Blessed Bernard was an immigrant
“I love the image of Bernard, setting up his mission station, building a school, growing his vegetables, teaching faithfully. But what I most love is the image conveyed by these words, written of him, “he prayed the Anglican hours each day.” Something very moving about that. Every day, several times a day, he would stop, to pray the office.” -Brother Geoffrey Tristram, SSJE
This abides,
Brother Robert, OA and Sister Michelle, OA
The icon of Bernard Mizeki is part of a series hanging in the nave at St. Clement’s, Seattle — The Anglo Catholics.