I feel like we struggle with how to respond to the refugee, especially when we consider individual vs. collective response. Change the word “respond” if you wish — to handle, care for, whatever-word-makes-sense-to-you-here. But I’m not certain we always know what’s wisest and best.
Allow us first, for clarity and communication purposes, to define some terms and add context…
A “refugee” is a person who has fled their home country. To be clear, it’s not just a person who has fled; they are a person who has been forced to flee due to a well-founded fear of persecution. This persecution may be based on their religion, ethnicity, political opinion or more. They have crossed an international border and cannot return because their life or freedom is in danger.
Another key person is an “immigrant.” An immigrant is a person who has moved to a country other than their birth country with the intention of living there permanently. Note they have not been forced.
There is also the “migrant.” A “migrant” describes a person who moves from place to place, but has yet to reach a final destination.
Much of the wisdom in responding to the refugee is embedded in Judeo-Christian principles. Granted, the Bible never uses the word “refugee,” but it repeatedly calls for the compassionate treatment of “strangers,” “foreigners” and “sojourners.” Adding to our context, “strangers” are persons we do not know, “foreigners” are persons not belonging to a particular group, and “sojourners” are people staying somewhere temporarily. We are called to never oppress the above trio, meaning we are not to keep others in subservience, especially via the unjust exercise of authority. As with all people, we are called to love them as we love ourselves. So much of Judeo-Christian ethics are summed up in this — in loving God and loving others.
And so we look at the wisest way to respond to the refugee…
My sense is we are to respond with compassion. We are to be generous in hospitality. We can offer practical care. And we are to be motivated by love — not fear. Too often I think we are sadly instead motivated by fear.
When I wrestle with the why, my sense is that in both our individual and collective responses, we’ve mixed up the varied roles defined above; it’s not easy to treat all people the same for precisely the reason that all people are not the same. Not every stranger, foreigner or sojourner who enters this country is forced. Not every stranger, foreigner or sojourner who leaves their nation of birth would be persecuted if they one day returned home. And certainly for those who’ve come from a country known to be hostile to this land of the free and home of the brave, should they come with a desire to still adhere to said hostility, they do not qualify as one in need of compassion, ignoring their animus bent.
Isn’t that the issue?
So often in order to remain firm in our stance, we negate the inconvenient; we minimize the part that dilutes the passion in our response. We ignore the angle that makes our perspective a little less penetrable.
Name your issue. Pick your point. What aspect are we underestimating?
Not all immigrants are refugees. Not all self-identified refugees have been forced to leave their country. Some who have entered America need our help; they need we the people to help them secure liberty and ensure domestic tranquility. Others have entered America who don’t need our help, but want the entitlements and benefits; there exist ways to work for such honorably. And there are still more, unfortunately wickedly, who are here to harm.
It’s logical, therefore, to conclude that a one-size-fits-all collective, government approach is likely to be grossly ineffective. It’s not that easy — letting all in or keeping all out.
Hence, I find it wise for our response to the refugee, immigrant and even our next door neighbor to be based more on Judeo-Christian principle as opposed to any partisan policy.
Respectfully… humbly, too…
AR