My Bereans colleague Bert Wheeler has written  compelling piece here essentially in favor of open immigration.  In theory and in essence I agree with his conclusions, but I would not take such a seemingly broad stance on the issue.  Several things are important to understand.  I believe he would also affirm at least most of these items.

First, the recent research I linked to in my previous post indicates that immigrants, and especially illegal immigrants, tend in the long run, if not also the short run, to hold ideological views that undermine the very free markets Dr. Wheeler (and I) wish to preserve.  They have come by and large from nations that are social democratic at best, and they bring this unfortunate baggage with them–and in increasing numbers, such that the electoral landscape is changing (see this article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441595/voter-demographics-diversifying-republicans-falling-behind–and the change goes deeper than just Republicans versus Democrat, but influences Conservative-Classical Liberal versus Socialist-Social Democrat).  We might be able to address that problem, but a lot more thought needs to be given to how.

Second, Scripture itself states that the Hebrew people in the Old Testament Hebrew polity were to allow the “alien and the stranger” to enter the borders of the “nation.”  However, they were also commanded to obey faithfully the laws of Moses and the true religion.  Here we see both a legal-institutional limitation and a more difficult religious-cultural restriction (see Exodus 12: 49; Numbers 15: 15-16).  The principle at work in that case is still applicable, though we would not impose any specifically religious test or criteria.

Third, and related to the second point, the problem of potential terrorism, while it ought not to abolish immigration, should lead public officials to engage in significant and strict screening of potential new citizens.  Thorough background checks are a necessity, and if no information is available I regret to argue that absent overriding humanitarian concerns, we cannot allow these individuals to enter the country.

Fourth, I add a bit of utopianism.  IF we eliminated our inefficient welfare system, required and promoted school choice and reined in the teachers’ unions, and if we required some education in the American constitutional system, we might produce a happy concurrence of interests.  But I know that the first proposal is “dead on arrival,” the second is very close, and the third is probably not far behind.  As I said, this is a set of ideal conditions.  That said, what could and should we do, and what could we do within the limits of our Christian theology?

We can and should change rules that favor one group over another in admitting legal immigrants.  We can also screen all potential immigrants.  We must have an enforceable border to prevent most illegal immigration.  We must require a degree of cultural and political assimilation, such as some type of civic education before final legal status is granted.  I am NOT arguing that immigrants abandon their cultural distinctives (older immigrant groups have always maintained at least some of those).  I am arguing regarding legal systems, political ideologies, biases against markets, etc.  We must also reduce wait times for legal applicants desiring to enter.  On a broader front, we must maintain a market economy and prevent a gradual dissolution of the constitutional system of limited government.  This latter will be extremely difficult if the recent research holds true, since many immigrants come from nations that have known no even close version of markets and limited government.  I would hate to cut off immigration from certain areas of the world simply because of that kind of threat.  But I find myself in a quandary as to a viable solution.  In the end, it boils down to admitting individuals into the nation through a legal process, but resulting in, if immigration is completely free (with screening of course), a possible undermining of the very system we and they would want to have to maximize our and their well-being.  

What about those illegal immigrants already in the country?  It would be both infeasible and arguably not acceptable simply to send them back.  However, they must be incentivized somehow to come forward, register and begin a legalization process.  In the meantime, there are certain benefits they cannot be allowed to enjoy until citizenship, including the right to vote.  I would also limit Federal welfare benefits, although states might continue them (and that is within their powers).  Any employment would be contingent on entering the legalization process, and I would place a time limitation on entry into the process.  That is within a certain time after employment anywhere begins the alien would be required to begin the citizenship process.  After that, of course, it would be up to the bureaucrats to move on the application (including screening).  I forgot to add, that the non-citizen would also have to pay taxes if employed.  Finally, let’s do better in processing applications for citizenship, hiring more offiicials if necessary and reducing unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles.  The crucial part is the screening for criminal and/or terrorist activity or connections, and communicable disease issues.  Beyond that, it ought to be easy.