19 October 2011

RUMINATIONS: Raymond BillyThere is a subtle but important difference between the religious right's agenda and the compassionate-conservative style of governing. That distinction continues to be made manifest — yet easily overlooked — as illegal immigration factors into election politics.

The so-called religious right has specific public policy goals in mind that reflect biblical standards. The movement's adherents believe if they can implement those policies, society can be protected from the corrosive consequences of its immorality. Their brand of conservatism takes great pride in the rule of law and dispassionately enforces it by the letter. Compromise is seen as an invitation to anarchy.

In contrast, compassionate conservatives do not see the Bible as the basis for a specific political agenda. They use it as a source of wisdom that shapes how they think about policy decisions. They align with the religious right on many issues: defending the traditional definition of marriage, defending human life from conception and opposing embryonic stem cell research. But — whereas the religious right focuses with laser-like precision on achieving biblically steeped, legally rigid goals — compassionate conservatives arrive at their conclusions by wading through the more nuanced waters of “What would Jesus do?” regarding policy decisions. They are less rigid in their enforcement of the law, believing that there is room for graciousness when dealing with its violators.

As such, many compassionate conservatives take a lenient approach to handling America's immigration problem. They view illegal residents as human beings foremost. The religious right is much more stern. They see these immigrants as lawbreakers first.

Former President George W. Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Texas Gov. Rick Perry fall into the compassionate conservative category. Each man would acknowledge that illegal immigration is a big problem that must be dealt with. For the religious right — which is represented most prominently by the likes of the American Family Association and its political commentator Bryan Fischer — a natural ingredient for dealing with the problem is, at minimum, encouraging all illegal immigrants to return to their homelands. This entails treating them in such a manner — limiting their access to employment, social services and other benefits of citizenship — that would also discourage any more people from coming here illegally. For compassionate conservatives like Bush, Huckabee and Perry, the issue of stemming the flow of future illegal migration is wholly separate from how to deal with the undocumented residents already here.

Bush proposed a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He argued that the overwhelming majority of those here illegally are an asset to this country, calling them hardworking and moral people. Huckabee advocated legislation that would have extended the less expensive in-state tuition costs to illegal immigrants attending Arkansas universities while governor there. Perry supported similar measures during his tenure as governor, a move that has drawn criticism from fellow Republicans and conservative commentators.

The religious right doesn't deny that most illegal immigrants are decent human beings. But that is immaterial to them. Illegals should not be granted citizenship or the blessings thereof because they are lawbreakers. Many compassionate conservatives say that it's not a problem that undocumented immigrants are here — it's their illegal status that's the problem. Undocumented workers are often subject to labor abuse by employers who underpay them. This practice drives down wages in communities heavily populated by illegal immigrants — a major source of hostility toward them. Giving them a pathway to citizenship would solve the problem. And since we should be giving these immigrants a path to citizenship, compassionate conservatives say, allowing them to participate in the blessings of America in the interim is not a big deal.

Compassionate conservatives are more likely to take a “Christ-like” approach to legal matters. Jesus affirmed the Mosaic law espoused by his Jewish contemporaries. But according to Jesus, the law was made for people, not people for the law. Jesus did not believe the law should be revoked or changed. But he was willing to overlook the law whenever it was used to judge people, rather than protect and benefit them.

It would be presumptuous to say that one side is “correct” and one side is “wrong” about this issue. There is no biblical passage that reads, “Thou shall extend amnesty to some illegal immigrants.” Nor is there one that reads, “Thou shall deport illegal immigrants from your country.” From a Christian perspective, this is a matter of conscience. But the compassionate conservative approach to this issue, and governing in general, is much more biblically holistic. The God of the Bible — in Old- and New-Testament times — has always used discretion when judging all of the lawbreakers under heaven.

---