Are open borders Biblical?

A response to Logos Scotland’s report,
“Shake the Dust”

As Christians, we should explore God’s revelation and seek to apply its teaching to every aspect of life.  So, a Biblical look at immigration, refugees, borders and nationhood is welcome.

There are several steps between Biblical text and policy application, from effective exegesis, through elucidating principles, to translating these into a contemporary context, to proposing policy.  Roughly speaking, as one moves through this process, the influence of human thinking increases and with this should come an increasing openness to the perspectives of other Christians.  The Bible’s teaching may be clear but applying it today may raise new questions that are unaddressed in scripture. 

I will offer my thoughts on the “Shake the Dust” report, briefly commenting on the use of Biblical material and principles drawn from it before considering the conclusions.  Quotations from the report are in italics.

Before engaging with the theology, I will add to the definitions provided.

Refugees: those who have had to flee their country of origin

This is a standard definition of a refugee, but “had to” is perhaps too strong.  It applies in some cases, but not in others.  “Chose to under a significant threat to their wellbeing” could still justify refugee status.  In as crisis, people may decide to leave at different stages, and some might not leave at all.  If a fire is engulfing a town, people have to leave.  If attacks on a community are intensifying, each will decide when, or if, to leave.     

Asylum seekers: those who arrive at another border and request asylum for their own safety and wellbeing.

This definition assumes that all who apply for asylum do so “for their own safety and wellbeing.”  This is not the case.  Many apply for asylum as a route to immigration, presenting false reasons.  Considering that the prize for gaining access to a wealthy nation from a poor one can be a five to tenfold increase in salary, it is inevitable that dishonest means will be employed in its pursuit.

Immigrants: those who seek to move to another country for a whole myriad of reasons, but not under duress or extreme necessity.

This is a good definition but could helpfully be divided into legal and illegal immigrants.   These categories are fundamentally different.  A person following a prescribed process to gain permission to dwell in a new country is conceptually distinct from a person who decides to bypass the processes prescribed by a state and to enter it in contravention of the prevailing laws, as a guest differs from a trespasser.

The Theology

The Incarnation

consider the ‘journey’ the Word took in becoming flesh.

a migration was undertaken by God in His becoming a man

One who experienced the necessity of migration and how it inalterably changes the traveller.

The analogy between the Son of God incarnating as a human and immigration is very weak – the relevant differences are many and the similarities minimal.  Any “change” undergone by the Son of God as a result of Jesus’s mission on Earth is of an entirely different nature to the way that accumulated experiences help form our character. 

Jesus the Refugee

the in-utero Jesus has no option but to leave Nazareth in Galilee with His parents to be registered in a national census

The travel to register for the Roman Census is more analogous to a modern person having to go to the passport office in the capital city.  It is not international, and it does not involve long term relocation.  This incident has no relevance to the issue of migration.

his family to flee the land of Israel to evade King Herod’s furious infanticide

This is a clear cut case: the Holy Family were refugees.  Their decision to flee was justified by a credible threat to their son’s life.  We are ignorant of how they were treated in Egypt, but a sympathetic and supportive response would have been appropriate.

the coast has become clear. King Herod is dead and the special child is no longer under the same threat

The report does not comment on this point, but it is an example, at least, that refugees can return home when the danger has passed.

I question the extent to which Jesus’s refugee phase is relevant to our approach to the issue.  An argument along the lines of “Jesus was a refugee, so we should be particularly concerned about the rights of refugees,” seems similar to “Jesus worked as a carpenter, so we should be particularly concerned about the rights of carpenters at work.”   While such lines might help induce empathy and overcome prejudice against refugees (or carpenters), little can be deduced about the proper Christian response to refugees (or carpenters) from them.

The Genealogy of Jesus

Matthew seems to highlight the mixed nature of Jesus’s lineage purposely … [perhaps to speak] to disciples of their responsibility to cross cultural boundaries to spread Christ’s gospel.

This may be true.  Certainly, the New Testament is emphatic that ethnic differences are irrelevant to the mission and unity of the church.  But how does this impact current immigration policy debate?  Hostility to immigration based on racial hostility or superiority is certainly outside of Christian morality, but Jesus’s genealogy doesn’t seem to take us beyond this. 

Ancestry plays a part in the sense of unity and continuity that strengthen bonds of nationhood.  People whose forebears were not part of their current nation might generally experience a weaker sense of commitment and investment in that nation.   Those of a more (usually left-leaning) internationalist bent might especially welcome immigration for precisely this reason, as they see nation states as problematic and supranational organisations as the cure.  Those of a more (usually right-leaning) nationalist bent might be more cautious about large scale immigration because they regard a strong sense of common national identity as a unifying strength.

Paradoxically, states can struggle to enact generous universal welfare and health systems where there is a weak sense of unified identity.  For such systems, tax-payers must regard the recipients as members of the same national group, rather than members of competing subcultures.  The left-leaning approach to immigration tends to make it more difficult to produce societies embodying leftwing principles.   Idealists, of course, would wish to change human nature and overcome this in-group bias.  This is unrealistic and the inclination of people to group together in communities of mutual support and protection is valuable, from families to nation states.

With regard to foreign affairs, it is common for the deepest allegiances of immigrants to become explicit when a conflict involves their nation of origin, and allegiance is often not to the nation in which they reside.  

It can be hoped that such problems will dissipate with time, but this process of assimilation will be overtaken if new immigration outpaces it.  It is rational and reasonable to consider the effects of large-scale immigration on national cohesiveness.  

Ruth

As the report states, the story of Ruth includes movement as a refugee.  The care and provision that she enjoys can be taken as an example to us, and a cue for polices that provide refugees with what they need and help them to feel included in the society.

the Torah’s…insistence on making space for foreigners who need to glean from the edges of the fields to scrape a living

The system of gleaning can be seen as a proto-welfare system and the inclusion of a refugee models the inclusion of refugees in systems that ensure that basic needs are met.  In other words, they should be cared for as the existing population is.   

Nowhere to Lay His Head

Jesus’s lifestyle of voluntary poverty and itinerant ministry in is home nation may have shared some of the challenges experienced by displaced people, such as uncertainty, but this is coincidental and does not help inform our response to refugees.   

Exodus

God’s people went to Egypt as refugees from famine and left as refugees from oppression, with traumatic events accompanying both.  God’s concern to liberate is evident. 

Settlement in Egypt led to severe tensions as the Israelite population grew, maintained a distinct identity, and became seen as a threat.  The report does not refer to this aspect of the story. 

Exodus from Egypt was followed by invasion and settlement of new territory, with severe conflict with the existing populations, often fuelled by religious difference.  The report does not refer to this aspect of the story. 

What lessons can we draw from it?  When a new population vies for territory or dominance with established peoples, conflict can follow.  While small numbers of immigrants can enjoy the hospitality of the host, large groups of immigrants with a distinct identity and ambition can lead to tensions. 

Immigration policy should aim to prevent the formation of substantial population blocks who see themselves as distinct from the wider population in terms of identity, core values and vision for the future.  Many nations rely on democratic processes to steer the nation according to a consensus.  However, such systems may prove inadequate to resolve the differences in a nation divided between democrats and theocrats, for example.   

From Galilee to Jerusalem

we discover a Jesus who is on the move out of necessity, not unlike today’s refugee and asylum seeker.

Again, I regard any parallel between Jesus’s mobility in the course of his mission and refugees as incidental.

Jesus and the Samaritans

Through his actions and words, Jesus demonstrated a willingness to interact with people from ostracised and demonised groups.  We should follow his example, rejecting prejudice and recognising virtues wherever they are found.  Similarly, we should be friendly and respectful to people from all nations.  That is all very basic Christian morality, but what does it imply about immigration policy? 

Policy should not be determined by prejudices or irrational hostilities.  That’s true, but what about genuine concerns?  What about immigration from lands where anti-western hatred is commonplace?  Where living under theocratic rule is widely regarded as ideal?  Where gang violence and corruption are endemic?   Large scale immigration from these counties will likely entail importing problems.  Islamic terrorism in France, the mafia style gangs in the USA, gun crime in the UK: each of these problems was initially imported to the nation through immigration.  

It is reasonable and ethical to seek to protect the existing population from such dangers through immigration restrictions.  Even in the case of genuine refugees some consideration could be given to alternatives to immigration, such as assistance nearer to the trouble spot.

This might seem unfair to the applicant who utterly rejects the dangerous philosophies of her compatriots, but individualising the process is not practical on a large scale and self-report is unreliable.    

Of course, immigrants can bring positive values to a nation, such as industry, educational ambition and strong family bonds, and native populations are more than capable of generating dangerous trends without any outside assistance.  However, the responsibility of the state to seek the flourishing and safety of its existing citizens is a solemn one and has a bearing on immigration policy.   

This is how you love your enemy: by not treating them as an enemy at all

While this exhortation can find application in interpersonal affairs, it cannot be applied to the state without great discernment.  On a literalistic reading, it could prohibit war, any form of self-defence, the criminal justice system etc.  It is the function of the state to protect its citizens. 

The Ethics of the Reconciliation at the Cross

the onus upon followers of Jesus is, in a correlative manner, to bring about reconciliation in their fellow human relationships:

We are indeed called to be agents of reconciliation, as well as to fight evils.  The restoration of relationships must not be at the expense of our integrity.  This desire for reconciliation might have some application among disunited groups in a nation, or between hostile nations, it is unclear how it applies to immigration and refugee policy.   

Hospitality

The Church must continue to implement hospitality to strangers such as today’s refugees and those seeking asylum and immigration.

It is certainly true that the church should offer an active welcome to all, regardless of their background or moral worthiness.  Those new to a country should find the church to be an exceptionally hospitable community, and, as far as I can see, this is usually the case. 

The injunction to be hospitable to foreigners in our midst should not translate, however, into an unqualified demand to bring foreigners into our midst in order that we may be hospitable towards them.  The church’s personal welcoming of individual foreigners does not automatically translate into an open immigration policy.    

The church’s hospitality is a straightforward expression of its faith in action.  Attempts to influence immigration and asylum policy can also be driven by Christian principles, for example where genuine refugees lack a place of refuge or where asylum processes are rejecting those in genuine need.  Even these cases, though, must be considered in the wider context of international strategy, alternative provision and impact on local communities.  Christian hospitality does not imply open borders.   

Many Christians have been obedient to a call to care for foreigners by relocating to a foreign country – an admirable endeavour.

The Sheep and the Goats

 ‘the least of these’

In particular, the ‘stranger’ could very well be rendered ‘foreigners’

Contemporary readers of scripture, then, should understand these ‘foreigners’ as the modern-day equivalent of refugees, asylum seekers or immigrants.

Agreed: the church should devote special attention to providing for “strangers”.  But this does not imply that we should import the populations of other states in order that we may care for them.

Jesus and ‘the People’

Throughout His earthly ministry Jesus is identified with marginal groups of people who were understood as outliers

Agreed: we should pay particular attention to people facing challenges, including refugees.  Those feeling outside of the mainstream of society should feel at home in the church.   Again, this relates to the treatment of people in our midst, not immigration policy.

Exiles and Strangers

Were the labels of ‘exile’ and ‘alien’ imposed upon these Christians because of their socio-political situation in life? If this were the case, it would not take much to imagine how foreign the taking on a newfound faith from Judea would also feel, not least how such would be perceived by family, friends and employers.

Living as “aliens and strangers” may be a literal aspect of the Christian life, and it is certainly a metaphorical one.  We should not regard this world as our ultimate home and should, therefore, see ourselves as apart from the world in some senses and order our priorities accordingly.

Exilic attitudes and experiences might help Cristians empathise with displaced people but offer little to policy discussion.

Policy Perspectives

So, after this theological foray, what policies does Logos Scotland propose? 

Work was important both for the respect of the community and to allow those who have travelled the dignity in providing for their families and contribute to the economy. Provision was made within society to allow for that to happen. This should be a key element of any policy towards those seeking asylum and immigration.

Currently, those living in refugee camps near to their countries of origin are often not allowed to work.  Allowing and facilitating employment and business opportunities in this context would be a positive step, for the reasons given.

Refugees and legal immigrants to the UK can, of course, work.

However, that is not what is proposed here.  The proposal is that asylum seekers should be able to work.  There are benefits to this, but also concerns.  Might some enter the UK in order to earn money while their fictitious asylum claim was drawn through every possible avenue of appeal?  Preventing asylum seekers from escaping officialdom and remaining illegally would be more difficult if they are working. 

I assume that “those seeking immigration” are either people here on some sort of temporary visa or people who have entered the country illegally.  Allowing the former to work would amount to the abolition of the work permit/visa system.  This would remove the power of the state to regulate the work force.  Currently, people can be granted temporary admission without regard to their impact on the jobs market.  Those here illegally are criminals who should not benefit from their crime.    

there are many reasons people arrive in Scotland, many of which we might not know or understand. The “system” by which we decide whether they should remain must take account of these stories and should make decisions based on the human consequences of return.

Is that not exactly what the asylum system does?  Does it not also allow for lengthy (and expensive) appeals against decisions?  

With regard to legal immigration applications, the state can make decisions according to its own priorities.   These priorities may include compassionate reasons such as family unification, but there is no right to immigrate to any particular country.  Currently, an estimated 456,000,000 sub-Saharan Africans harbour a desire to emigrate to a richer nation.  For many reasons, allowing immigration on a huge scale would result in monumental challenges, so a system based solely on assessing the stories of applicants could fail to restrict immigration to the degree required.

Any system that is put in place should be based on the person, rather than the efficiency of the process.

Any system processing tens of thousands of people must be efficient.  A state cannot be expected to assign unlimited resources to dealing with immigration applications.  Yes, it should deal with people well, but keeping costs under control is also a responsibility to the nation’s taxpayers who are footing the bill.

At the moment in the UK it often seems like we are focused on how we deal with removing people, rather than how we deal with people who are here. Everything is based on making the system of removal efficient and the process for decision taking quick.

This is at odds with my perception.  The UK state struggles to remove failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, hence their consideration of increasingly drastic measures such as rejecting international human rights obligations.  Human rights legislation makes the process very difficult and slow, following an expensive quasi-legal processes and appeals. 

A reason to seek the swift removal of illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers is that their possibly criminal or dishonest actions are unfairly imposing a cost on the UK.

Throughout the Bible we see the integration and acceptance of the stranger into society and communities. But what is also clear is that this is such a hard thing to achieve; we can only do it through the most enormous sacrifice.

Integrating, or, to use the more common term, assimilating immigrants is a controversial goal.  Under the doctrine of multiculturalism, immigrants are not expected to assimilate but are encouraged to live their lives in homogeneous communities of people with a similar background.  This philosophy is damaging as it leads to inter-group tensions and inequalities of opportunity.  So, integration is important, and we should be willing to work to promote it.  The initial conversations with someone from another culture, with poor English, can require effort, for example.  Equally, there must be responsibility to integrate placed on the immigrant.

If the integration process requires such effort and sacrifice, it is reasonable to ask the electorate the extent to which they are happy making this special effort with, for example, economic migrants.  Also, this effort cannot be multiplied indefinitely.  There must be a limit to how many immigrants can be integrated at a time (though the integration process will vary dramatically depending on an immigrant’s previous culture and language and the size of any concentrated diaspora community).      

We now come to the crux of the paper.

This is wholly based on the idea that borders are things we have to defend, they are the barrier between us and our neighbours; they are what keep us safe, a place of difference.

But the Bible has a different approach. Here borders are seen as a place of meeting, they are places where nations and people come together and merge, they are rarely lines on the ground or actual physical barrier but instead are porous where people move and traverse regularly.

What this means in practice is not clear, but the proposal seems to be open borders: the removal of any immigration control system and the welcoming of anyone who wants to live in the UK.  What else could rejecting the idea of a border as a barrier mean? 

This is a radical proposal.  If a rich nation such as the UK declared itself open to all comers, literally millions would arrive every year.  Managing public services and housing would be impossible.  The cost to the state would be crippling.  The health and welfare systems would break down.  Resentment and anger among the existing population would boil over.  For these and other reasons, not a single nation has an open borders policy. 

The assertion that open borders are a Biblical principle is incorrect. 

First, let’s set aside the issue of refugees.  I’ll return to that later.  My focus is on voluntary immigration here.

The implicit reasoning of the Logos report seems to be this: the Bible teaches us to be show hospitality to foreigners, showing respect and rejecting prejudice.  If all arguments against open borders are taken to be symptoms of racism or xenophobia, then these Biblical principles would indeed refute them.  This would leave open borders as an uncontested policy.       

But the common arguments against open borders are not symptoms of racism and xenophobia.  No nation has an open borders policy that permits travel, settlement and work without restriction.  This not because every nation on earth is racist and xenophobic, but because every nation is aware of its duties to its citizens. 

here in the UK the conversation seems to be centred around controlling and ensuring safe and strong borders. So what if we changed that conversation and instead saw our borders as places of meeting, of collaboration, of diversity and a place of encounter? The radical, counter cultural message of the Bible again places a massive challenge to our thinking of today.

The concept of borders as places of encounter, collaboration and diversity is not a clear one.  Collaborating through a border fence?  Meeting at the checkpoint?  Diversity though different populations being on each side of the border line?  These seem trivial applications.     

What should we have in place of “safe and strong” borders?  Dangerous and weak borders?

Again, it seems apparent that Logos Scotland is proposing an open borders policy under which national boundaries do not inhibit movement and settlement.  This conclusion is not supported by the Biblical material cited. 

Extrapolation from kindness to strangers to open borders is akin to extrapolation from provision for the poor to communism.  Even if facilitating the movement of people between nations was a Biblical principle, which I dispute, its application must be in the context of other serious moral considerations.  Such considerations are absent from the report. 

It looks as though the Bible has been mined for material that supports a pre-existing political stance.   The logic purported to connect the theology with the conclusion is tacit, as is the assumption that racism and xenophobia are the principal deterrents of open borders policies.

Logos Scotland describes itself as “daring to challenge the accepted worldview”, but this paper attempts to provide a theological foundation for the philosophy already held by the Scottish Government.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that, and, indeed, policies that accord with Christian values should be endorsed.  What we must avoid is claiming to present Biblical principle while advancing the conclusion of a tenuous chain of reasoning that we believe began with Biblical teaching.  I live among the same dangers with the same temptations: do tell me if you think I make this mistake over any issue. 

Returning to the issue of refugees, we can agree on more.  Admitting, looking after and caring for refugees is a Christian moral imperative.  There are valid provisos, though.  In some cases, refugees, and the state from which they flee, are better served by temporary accommodation nearby, allowing easy return when the danger has passed and effective rebuilding of the disrupted community and economy.  International agreements to allocate refugees proportionately are fair and beneficial to both receiving nations and refugees.    

To conclude, firstly, while the Bible is replete with instruction to show hospitality to the foreigner in our midst, it does not offer us direction on which or how many foreigners to admit into our midst.  Immigration policy must be informed by many practical considerations, some of which I outline in the Appendix.   

Secondly, a duty to welcome and support those fleeing danger can be inferred.  With regard to policy, this does not add much to debate as this principle is virtually universally accepted already.

Thirdly, perhaps where the Bible is most direct is in its exhortation to the church to care about and for those new to a nation, particularly refugees, including them in its community.  I see many examples of churches doing exactly this.

I believe these three conclusions sum up Biblical teaching on the issue.  I believe that the Logos Scotland report reaches far beyond any Biblical foundation.  The political position it commends may be one that some Christians wish to adopt.  However, they should not claim that it is rooted in Biblical teaching.   

I’m always happy to debate.

Appendix

In addition to the points mentioned already, considerations relevant to immigration policy include the following.  How much weight to give to each factor is an open question, but they all deserve consideration.

1. The goal of improving the lot of those in poorer countries is most effectively achieved by enabling economic growth, free trade and helping establish sound government and institutions.  Allowing migration to richer countries has very little overall impact.
2. Migration often entails richer people from poorer countries becoming poorer people in richer countries.  This increases global inequality as poorer countries are further impoverished by the depletion of their most productive, wealthy and educated citizens.
3. The “brain drain” effect of emigration from a poorer country can devastate public services and leave poorer countries unwilling to invest in medical training, for example.
4. The economic and wage impact of immigration is often found to be slight, but the lowest paid, including recent immigrants, are usually the most negatively affected. 
5. A common family investment strategy is to pay for passage to enable a young son to illegally enter a rich country to work for a period.  The sum earned could be life transforming for the family back home.
6. The fallacy of composition is commonly employed with regard to immigrants and immigration: the fact that a particular immigrant may appear to be a wholly positive addition to a community does not imply that any number of immigrants would have a similarly positive effect.
7. Where substantial linguistically and culturally isolated diaspora communities develop, immigration into them will tend to accelerate.  The larger and more isolated the community, the faster the acceleration.  Immigration seems more attractive when reception into a culturally similar community is envisaged, obviating the need for assimilation.
8. Many immigrants underestimate the emotional cost of cultural dislocation and family separation.   In many cases, immigration does not enhance the life satisfaction of immigrants in the way they had hoped for and expected.
9. Importing trained workers can benefit businesses, but can also lead to a deskilling of the native population as employers externalise their training costs to poorer countries and reduce investment in their own training programmes.
10. Cultural enrichment can be a benefit of immigration, but ongoing immigration from similar cultures will tend to have diminishing returns.
11. Isolated communities tend to lapse into tensions and feuding, as each remembers misdeeds perpetrated by the other group.
12. A democratic citizenry has the right to self-determination.  Drastic alteration of the composition of the citizenry changes the self that is determining its own affairs, thus undermining the democratic contract.  Such changes to the “self” must have a democratic mandate.  Even then there could be valid objections, for example if a majority group is bolstering its position by importing more people from the same group or with the same views.
13. Nations use the education system to pass on national values, traditions and culture to new generations.  They do this because they are regarded as important in sustaining the nation.  Bringing in people who have not benefitted from this education undermines the effectiveness of the project.
14. When people migrate within a state, as they have a right to do, the government can implement policies (such as locally targeted investment) to mitigate any problems arising, such as local over-crowding or depopulation.  Such levers are not available to ameliorate negative consequences of international migration.
15. The UK social contract involves payments throughout one’s working life for benefits that are disproportionately received in later life.  Joining the system midway through can raise issues of fairness.  Willingness to contribute to the system can be eroded if it is felt that others are benefiting unfairly.
16. Planning the provision of services is hampered where demographic projections are hindered by unpredictable immigration.
17. Families are justified in showing special concern for members.  In an analogous way, states are justified in showing special concern for their citizens.   Grouping together for the purpose of mutual support and protection is positive, and discrimination against non-members is justified.  The group’s mutual arrangements would have no meaning if the benefits were equally available to non-members.  The enlightened self-interest that bonds the group may fall short of moral perfection, but it enhances the life of all and accommodates human nature as it is.  A system bringing the world’s population under a common system such as this would not function effectively as the sense of solidarity would be so diluted that the mutuality would seem abstract.  Within a system of nation states, virtue can call forth sacrifices for non-citizens, through aid and through the welcoming of refugees, for example, but it would be foolish to critically undermine the function of the state in the process.