Replies

Testimony of James R. Edwards, Jr., Ph.D.
Adjunct Fellow, Hudson Institute
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration
May 22, 2007

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member King, members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to present a faith perspective on the immigration issue. I commend you for giving serious
consideration to this important aspect. My remarks represent the earnest, considered views of a lay
Christian who has sought to honor the Lord God (as Colossians 3:23 instructs, to work heartily for the
Lord’s pleasure) as I have engaged in my calling to the public policy sphere.

I certainly don’t claim that my conclusions are infallible because, like every other human
being who has ever lived (except Jesus), I am imperfect. As Francis Schaeffer said, “Having been
made in the image of God, man is magnificent even in ruin. God made man to be responsible for his
thoughts and actions . . . .” That wonderful description instills both humility and love.

I don’t claim to be a theologian. But as C.S. Lewis said, you don’t want theologians writing
civil laws; that’s outside their calling. Rather, you want faithful believers whom God has called into
the public policy field and equipped for that work.
On many subjects, Judeo-Christian Scripture is clear.

It contains proscriptions on murder,
theft, and perjury, for instance. But on immigration, as with other areas of public policy, Scripture isn’t
definitive. That would leave the specifics of immigration policy in the realm of prudential judgment.

In other words, one would need guidance from applicable biblical principles, to apply those
principles according to the specific facts known from general revelation and particular circumstances,
and to exercise sound judgment.

This process would necessarily involve a fair reading of the Bible,
taking passages in context, weighing various texts, and giving prayerful consideration to how those
texts should be regarded here, now. It would require reason, logic, and dispassionate weighing of
these factors. And, of course, a biblical approach would require removing, as much as humanly
possible, ulterior motives.

Thus, while different Christians may arrive at different conclusions as to policy specifics on
subjects like immigration where Scripture is silent or unclear, that fact would represent the freedom
they have in the Lord as His creatures and His followers — not that the Lord is Himself of a divided
mind. With many policy matters, more than one course of action that would pass muster with the
Lord God exists, or fulfill His will.

I believe this is the case with immigration.

Nine Biblical Principles

How might those seeking to exercise prudence approach the immigration issue? From what
biblical guidance can we derive sound immigration policy? I submit that we might begin with five
general principles from Scripture.
First, the two cornerstone commandments: Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind;
and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said these summarize God’s moral law, the Ten
Commandments (Matt. 22:37-40). They are timeless. They oblige each person, and that standard,
exercised by individuals, would thereby be reflected in civil society.

Second, God has given both temporal and eternal obligations. In Matthew 22:21, Jesus
says, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” This principle implies that some
binding moral commands may apply differently to individuals and to civil government.

Third, God doesn’t contradict Himself, and God’s principles don’t contradict one another.
Thus, His principles of justice, fairness, and equality don’t contradict, but are complementary to His
principles of mercy. Also, both justice and mercy principles obligate us more to some people over
others.

Elements of both sets of principles apply to us individually and as a body politic, but not
always equally. For example, Exodus 23:2 warns us “not [to] show favoritism to a poor man in his
lawsuit.” But James 2:1 says “don’t show favoritism [to the rich].” James 2:9 calls showing favoritism
“sin.”

In the context of the Golden Rule, the obligation to show mercy is greater for individuals than
could rightly be expected of civil government. Luke 6:30-31 says, “Give to everyone who asks you,
and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have
them do to you.” Obviously, that would be unjust for civil government to attempt, and such an attempt
at mercy would result in injustice (as well as be unwise and profligate with public resources).

The
state can’t turn the other cheek (Luke 6:29-30). The state can’t give its tunic. The state can’t turn a
blind eye toward someone who has stolen. The state can’t forgive someone 70 times seven times
(Matthew 18:21-22).