Like most political issues, discussions surrounding immigration are undergirded by deeper convictions in political and social philosophy—and theology. Unfortunately, these underlying convictions frequently go unacknowledged, which often leads to a great deal of talking past one another and making uncharitable assumptions in conversation.
In this introductory post to the series, I’d like to lay out one concept that every Christian seeking to think well about immigration must grapple with before having any justified confidence at the policy level. What we’ll find throughout this series is that passionate advocacy for this or that immigration policy is often conducted on the basis of philosophical and/or theological assumptions that have not been thoroughly examined.
The first question we’ll unpack—but won’t attempt to answer until a subsequent post—concerns the nature of the international community.
How Should We Understand the Structure of the International Community?
At the risk of oversimplifying things, there are, for our purposes, two main, big-tent perspectives on how we should view the international community.
Cosmopolitanism
In this context, cosmopolitanism refers to the perspective that the international community should be understood as a unified group of human beings, all equally entitled to pursue their own flourishing on the singular earth we inhabit. Borders are imaginary lines drawn in the ground (or through water) that arbitrarily divide the earth into chunks we now call nation-states. When sovereign states prohibit movement across these arbitrarily drawn lines, they often hinder human flourishing and perhaps even deny individuals the right they have—as human beings—to inhabit our shared earth.
The fundamental problem of immigration, according to cosmopolitanism, is the presence and regulation of national borders, which often stands as an impediment to human flourishing for those seeking a better life.
Communitarianism
Communitarianism can refer to several concepts in political philosophy, but here it refers to the perspective that sees nation-states as the main actors in the international community. Sometimes (regrettably) called nationalism—a term ripe for misunderstanding and one we’ll avoid—this view holds that, ever since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the introduction of state sovereignty, the world has been composed of sovereign, independent, geographically limited, and self-regulating nation-states. The nation-states are part of the United Nations charter and as such, cannot, under ordinary circumstances, interefere with other nation-states.
It hasn’t always been this way. But the days of feudalism, tribalism, city-states and empires are gone, and a one-world order is not on the horizon. A decentralized and fragmented collection of nation-states is our reality.
On a Christian understanding of the state, the governing authorities are responsible for ensuring peace, order, and public justice for those under their jurisdiction. Obviously, this includes regulating who can enter the state in order to protect and promote those ends. Furthermore, as a result of our current international situation, the governing authorities are embodied in the rulers and ruling structure of each nation-state. The fundamental problem of immigration, according to communitarianism, is when (or if) nation-states should allow immigration, and how they can do so in a way that preserves and promotes peace, order and justice for its citizenry.
You can probably see how adopting different positions on this philosophical (and theological) issue places very kind, thoughtful people at dramatically different starting points as they wrestle with immigration policy “further up” in the conversation.
Cosmopolitans will tend to see immigration laws—and the state’s enforcement of them—as contributing to injustice, insofar as borders stand in the way of human beings desperately seeking a better life on a shared planet. At best, border-policing and immigration policies will often been perceived as annoying hurdles to human flourishing. Communitarians, by contrast, will tend to see border-policing and immigration laws as critical to preserving and promoting justice, peace, and order for the citizenry. “How can a government protect its citizens if it doesn’t have a firm handle on who is crossing its borders and why?” says the communitarian. A man policing entry to his home is protecting his family; a state policing entry to its territory is protecting its citizens.
Cosmopolitans will often favor immigration policy driven by a kind of neighbor-love adapted for the state. Communitarians, on the other hand, will argue that the state’s primary imperative is justice, not love or compassion, which are ethical dispositions to be reflected by individuals (including personal compassion toward immigrants, regardless of legality). We are not tasked with doing public justice; the state is not tasked with doing public compassion and mercy, says the communitarian.
Cosmopolitans will likely reject the idea that a state should show significant favoritism toward its own citizens over others, including those living within its jurisdiction or even outside of it within its sphere of influence. Communitarians argue that distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens is an ancient and necessary practice: if governments don’t favor their own citizens, their responsibility to enact justice and maintain good order becomes an empty concept. There must be a stable concept of a “them” for whom justice is being done in the first place.
Finally, cosmopolitans tend to strongly reject the idea that certain cultures are superior to others and worthy of protection from “corruption” by outsiders—viewing such ideas as arrogant and ethnocentric. Communitarians, while supportive of cultural diversity, observe that not all social norms, practices, and traditions equally contribute to human flourishing. Furthermore, they hold that a nation-state can reasonably expect a degree of assimilation from its immigrants without erasing their unique cultural contributions which enrich the fabric of society. Moreover, states may sometimes enact immigration policy that protects the foundational values, norms, practices, and traditions of their citizens when credible threats to internal stability arise.
What Are We to Make of This? Can Political Theology Help?
I believe it can.
In the next post in this series—not to be confused with the next post on this Substack—I’ll argue that Scripture supports an individual and ecclesiological ethic of compassion (the kind that drives cosmopolitanism), but a state ethic of justice (the kind that drives communitarianism) in virtue of which governing authorities possess the right to regulate their borders and immigration for the sake of public justice and good order.
Helpful Resources
Mark Amstutz, Just Immigration: American Policy in Christian Perspective
Matthew Soerens and Jenny Yang, Welcoming the Stranger
M. Daniel Carroll, Christians at the Border
Kristin Heyer, Kinship Across Borders: A Christian Ethic of Immigration