Hillary and the Gospel of Immigration

The Hildebeeste announced her exegesis:

It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.

This is to announce her opposition to Sensenbrenner's immigration-control bill.

Aside from the obvious unfamiliarity (shared with her housemate, Bill, and with John "Kill the Babies" Kerry,) with the nature of Christ's mission and the both Testaments, and the sheer political pandering, Hildebeeste's arrogation of theological competence is laughable.

The language of the bill in question merely criminalizes 'aid...given to illegal immigrants [with the intention] of furthering their stay in the US.' It presumes that the aid-giver knows the status of an 'aided' individual, and that the "aid" is not merely humanitarian. The bill simply makes criminal those knowing acts which further illegal residence--not providing water, a meal, or a bed. (Curious, no, that providing water and food to Terri Schiavo did not call forth the Righteous Indignation of Hildebeeste...)

Hildebeeste's draconian interpretation of the language is shared by another Hero of the Left, Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles. Both err--perhaps for different reasons--but they are wrong.

Allowing immigration is, overall, a good thing. But the very nature of "allowing" means that there must be preconditions. In the case of the US, the general preconditions include "inculturation," a period of years during which the aspiring immigrant learns the language, laws, and customs of the country while working to support themselves and, perhaps, their family. The principle is the same as that of "education;" (which of itself is a reflection of "child-rearing;") it is a process aimed at producing reasonable homogeneity.

For about 50 years, the Federal Government has benignly neglected the border with Mexico, allowing a large number of people to illegally assume residence in the US. This has led to a number of problems in the practical order, such as wildly out-of-control costs for health and education in the South and Southwest.

But "cost," while a factor, should not be the priority determinant of immigration policy.

"Inculturation" SHOULD be the priority determinant, and Hildebeeste's ridiculous assertion of theological affirmation becomes even more laughable at this point.

Here again, we deal with 'natural law' and the limits of 'positive law.' For when Christ challenged the positive-law Pharisees with the mandate of the natural law in the Good Samaritan story, He pointed out the fiction of positive law when it countermands natural law.

Natural law presumes a brotherhood of mankind, but does not preclude civil governance. In fact, natural law promotes "subsidiarity," which was enshrined in the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, the one which specifically delegates to "the States, or the people" those powers NOT specifically granted to the Federal Government.

This "subsidiarity" presumes civil governance; such civil governance presumes homogeneity in various States (and Nations,) for no civil governance is possible when cultural disparity is deep and divisive, as France is now learning to her sorrow.

Thus, maintaining a just and reasonable "inculturation" process to assure public order in a given State (or Nation) is entirely reasonable under natural law. If one chooses to argue with immigration law as currently written, one can argue with elements which are "unjust" or "unreasonable," and there is plenty to argue about in those regards.

But to attempt to position Christ as an opponent to civil order is ludicrous--as are the arguments made against Sensenbrenner's legislation.