Immigration Law, Compassion,

and Conflicts
Issues Faced by Christians who have
a duty to help others and, at the
same, obey the law.
PART I: SETTING THE STAGE
First Christian Principle
As Christians, we are commanded to be
compassionate. Matthew 25:42-45
42
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty
and you gave me nothing to drink,
43
I was a stranger and you did
not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was
sick and in prison and you did not look after me.
44
They also will answer, Lord, when did we see you hungry or
thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did
not help you?
45
He will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of
the least of these, you did not do for me.

Second Christian Principle
As Christians, we obey authority unless it
conflicts directly with God. Titus 3:1
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be
obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good,
2
to slander no
one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle
toward everyone.


Constitutional Principle on
Immigration

Angel Island, CA: The West Coasts Ellis
Island
Constitutional Principle on
Immigration
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
A fear behind the act was an
undermining of US Labor
Sound familiar?
Chinese Exclusion Act is the starting
point for todays issues.
Most scholars agree that the courts first viewed powers
as being limited by the Constitution's enumerated
powers and the necessary and proper clause.
The Court, however, faced problems with the Chinese
Exclusion Act and Chae Chan Ping.
Was allowed to be in the US and returned to China for a
visit in 1887.
Was denied entry in 1888 due the Chinese Exclusion Act
of 1882 being updated by the Scott Act of 1888 that
prohibited reentry of Chinese.
But treaties with China guaranteed the right of reentry.
Supreme Ct. Exclusion powers incident to sovereign
powers delegated by the Constitution. Gov. wins.


New Principle: Limited gov. applies to domestic arena
and law of nations applies to foreign affairs
The control of local matters being left to local authorities, and
national matters being intrusted to the government of the Union,
the problem of free institutions existing over a widely extended
country, having different climates and varied interests, has been
happily solved. For local interests the several states of the Union
exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with
foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power. --J.
Field
If, therefore, the government of the United States, through its
legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a
different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be
dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be
stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the
nation of which the foreigners are subjects. --J. Field
The Justification: Fear
Fong Yue Ting case applied plenary
power to the deportation context.
But a voice from the past rang from the dissent by J. Gray.
It is said that the power here asserted is inherent in sovereignty. This doctrine of powers
inherent in sovereignty is one both indefinite and dangerous. Where are the limits to such
powers to be found, and by whom are they to be pronounced? Is it within legislative capacity
to declare the limits? If so, then the mere assertion of an inherent power creates it, and
despotism exists. May the courts establish the boundaries? Whence do they obtain the
authority for this? Shall they took to the practices of other nations to ascertain the limits?
The governments of other nations have elastic powers. Ours are fixed and bounded by a
written constitution. The expulsion of a race may be within the inherent powers of a
despotism. History, before the adoption of this constitution, was not destitute of examples of
the exercise of such a power; and its framers were familiar with history, and wisely, and it
seems to me, they gave to this government no general power to banish. Banishment may be
resorted to as punishment for crime; but among the powers reserved to the people, and not
delegated to the government, is that of determining whether whole classes in our midst
shall, for no crime but that of their race and birthplace, be driven from our territory.
Now, the power to remove resident aliens is, confessedly, not expressed. Even if it be among
the powers implied, yet still it can be exercised only in subordination to the limitations and
restrictions imposed by the constitution.
Little has changed
Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that for an
alien in the US, procedural due process applies.
But the plenary power doctrine is still good law
today.
Immigration Court is under the DOJ. (President)
USCIS is under Dept. of Homeland Security (President)
National security still trumps.
ICE will transport detainees far from counsel without
notice.
Suggestions on how to deal with
conflicts within the local community
Our Constitution has a path of non-violent
resistance built into it. Work through the
legislators.
Work with local legal advocacy groups: trend
in courts is to use statutory interpretation
principles to achieve fair results.
But what about immediate needs? Any ideas?
We must move forward with an eye on
the past.
Are securing borders another Chinese wall directed to another race out of the
same fears?