Rabbi Aryeh Spero writes in 2014:
In his Executive Order speech defending what most consider outright amnesty for five million illegal immigrants, President Obama cited the biblical verse in Exodus: “Thou shalt not afflict the stranger (22:20)”. There is no question that unlawful immigrants will soon be awarded a full basket of ongoing social services, as well as a fast track to citizenship. Is the president correct in asserting that we have been afflicting the stranger?
In all matters, the Bible teaches discernment, and there is a distinct difference between not afflicting another as opposed to requiring that we provide them citizenship and subsidize an entire life, especially when the burden of that support falls on the shoulders of overtaxed families, themselves not beneficiaries of such “entitlements.” Basic respect and kindness is one thing — it is a sign of our humanity; onerous sacrifice and national bankruptcy is another, something not required.
The Bible’s primary interest in this matter is a moral one: we all start out as children of God and should thus be treated with civility. In contrast to the biblical community, many ancient societies viewed strangers as fair game to be robbed or incarcerated, or as fodder for harsh sport and brutality. This, the Bible exhorts, was the way of Sodom. Even today, there are cultures and nations where “infidels” and strangers are oppressed and treated as sub-human and as dhimmis.
Yes, the Bible is clear: “One law shall prevail for all.” Basic justice regarding one’s property, personhood, and a right to trial is universal and transcends tribe. However, what serious American citizen would claim “affliction” if not provided complete subsidy? Nor is automatic citizenship the antidote required to prove an absence of affliction. That’s a bar too high…
What separates our current circumstance of immigration from previous ones is precisely the welfare state the U.S. has become and massive immigration’s hefty burden on taxpayers and threat to basic services.
Furthermore, the anti-assimilationist fervor among today’s multicultural ideologues raises the question as to whether America’s historic cultural ethos can survive this huge foreign influx.
Nor is this an issue of race; indeed, many of us admire the qualities of those coming from south of the border.
The Bible’s focus is on morality, and its humane ethos should not be exploited for the political agenda of those Democrats whose ultimate goal is to drastically change demographics so as to ensure the Democrat Party’s dominance and control. Nor did the Bible see its mission as fostering a replacement of an existing society and its identity through a massive Obama-like ‘transformative’ immigration.
Over the years, many in the social-justice crowd have boasted that they “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” How ironic that those making the point not to afflict the stranger have a knee-jerk desire to afflict the comfortable, including most of the middle class who daily work hard just to remain afloat. It sounds more like vengeance than it does social justice.
