In Galatians, the apostle Paul speaks of the “fruit of the Spirit” and the “works of the flesh.” The former are the product of God’s influence in our lives, and the latter are actions that arise from the corrupt and unredeemed disposition of humanity (Galatians 5:19-26).
Among the works of the flesh, Paul mentions what the English Standard Version calls “rivalries,” which the New International Version calls “selfish ambition” (v. 20). These are quarrels born of selfishness. They take our eyes off what is good and true, focusing more on spitting on those who prevent us from acquiring material treasures. Preoccupied with antagonism and victory in argument, we devalue what is right. The fight becomes more important than the solution.
Our nation’s immigration policy has long been a victim of this dynamic, and the partisan rivalries that hinder the pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform illustrate what is wrong with our politics.
America’s immigration problems at the southwest border are no small matter, involving both a humanitarian crisis for migrants and, on the home front, security concerns and shortages. In 2023, the U.S. Border Patrol reported more than 2.4 million encounters with migrants at the Mexican border. Texas alone has a back of 458,630 immigration cases in its court system.
But migrants continue to come seeking asylum because they believe that the United States offers a better life and that if they can just cross our border, they can stay. Many migrants arriving at the southern border have left their home countries, such as Venezuela and Colombia, to escape economic and political hardship. “It is false to claim that no one arriving at the border is a refugee, because many have very legitimate asylum claims” explain Journalist based in Mexico, Ioan Grillo. “But it is also wrong to say that there are no economic migrants. Or that people don’t run away from both poverty and bullets.”
God told his people to care for immigrants because of their often desperate situation (Zech. 7:9-10), and this centuries-old despair is still the reality of our world today. Yet too many of our political leaders have been, at best, half-serious about solving these problems. Self-serving rivalries, pettiness and fear-mongering have derailed years of efforts to reform immigration with the cooperation and sobriety it demands.
People on both sides were optimistic about the prospects for immigration legislation after then-President Barack Obama was re-elected in 2012. “I think 2013 is the year of immigration reform ” said Senator Lindsey Graham. declared. The Bipartisan »Band of Eight” authored the document on border security, economic opportunity and immigration modernization. 2013 law and passed it in the U.S. Senate, but the House never took it up. The bill died in the 113th Congress.
Soon, bipartisan immigration reform became anathema within the Republican Party. A noisy minority Tea Party activists found that tough rhetoric on the border attracted more attention than discussions of comprehensive solutions. In 2014, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his seat, at least in part, because of his support for immigration reform, which his primary opponent described as amnesty for illegal aliens.
Campaigning for president the following year, Senator Ted Cruz took Sen. Marco Rubio, a member of the Gang of Eight, is accused of the unforgivable sin of working with Democrats on a bill that would have given some illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. “The Gang of Eight voted as a group against the strengthening and securing of the border” Cruz saidalthough its own file on immigration reform was far less restrictive than he would claim once public opinion had turned.
The rise of former President Donald Trump, who infamously launched his 2016 presidential campaign suggesting that most Mexican immigrants are violent criminals ensured that the Gang of Eight approach had no near-term future in the GOP. And now, nearly a decade later, migrants, border states, and local governments are all suffering needlessly because of the selfish ambition of a few.
The situation came to a head earlier this year, with the Biden administration in a “dead end” with Texas Governor Greg Abbott and more than a dozen other red state governors, after the Supreme Court spoke out in favor of the federal government in a border conflict. Given the urgency of the moment, another bipartisan group of senators crafted a smaller compromise deal, but apparently such a solution is not politically expedient during an election.
Asset publicly opposed the deal, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, privately, would have been subjected to pressure Senate Republicans are expected to do the same, saying the former president wanted to campaign on a broken immigration system and urging their colleagues not to “do anything that would weaken” Trump. This version of the agreement is dead, and a new version, announcement last Sunday, died Wednesday in the Senate.
It’s a civic mistake. Forbidding the ability to solve a major national issue to win an election is a violation of the public trust. This zero-sum game has gone way too far. Lawmakers don’t have to accept the first proposal put on the table — the deal that fell apart this week included unrelated war funding — but they must engage in good faith, with the goal of resolving the problem. .
And the problem is not exclusive to Republicans. While Democrats have demonstrated greater commitment to reform, some on the left have reflexively resisted strict border control. “I hope Democrats understand that it’s not xenophobic to worry about the border,” Democratic Sen. John Fetterman said recently. said. “It’s a reasonable conversation, and Democrats should engage in it.”
Whether they will do so remains to be seen. Over the years, Democrats have responded to Republican opportunism and callousness with their own rivalry-driven antics. This theater may help them win elections, but it has done our country a disservice by downplaying the hardships endured by border states.
In some cases, Democrats’ own voters have suffered from their selfish ambition. For example, cities far from the southern border, such as Chicago, DenverAnd New York City-signaled virtue and bragged about being sanctuary cities without adequate budget or plan for truly supporting thousands of migrants. Progressive mayors and governors have used the border crisis to capitalize on national partisan polarization. They used a caricature of conservatives as a foil, talking about sanctuary city status as a cheap way to antagonize Republicans without having to deal with the real costs of our broken system. They bragged about their generosity, but were never forced to think seriously about what they would do if they had to govern Texas.
This performance was interrupted when Texas Governor Greg Abbot started sending asylum seekers heading north to towns that were intended only to support them symbolically. His decision was morally and ethically suspect, but he effectively called the Democrats’ bluff and forced them to seriously participate in the conversation. Instead of selling wolf tickets to the media, they now had skin in the game. And after welcoming tens of thousands of migrants, they started screaming bloody murder. Even New York Mayor Eric Adams critical the Biden administration on immigration. The charade has been revealed.
We don’t need to pretend that both sides are equal on this issue to recognize that it’s more complex than just being nice and letting migrants in or petty stopping them from entering. Although the Christian call to treat the immigrant with compassion is clear, this general provision does not prevent us from recognizing the practical reality. We don’t let anyone on the street into our homes because we don’t have enough food or rooms for everyone. America is rich, but it is not without the same immigration considerations. Encouraging people to come to a place that is not prepared to welcome them is not kind.
It’s time to get serious. We need comprehensive immigration reform, and we need to encourage our leaders to do the hard work of democracy, to sit down and thoughtfully find solutions that both sides can agree to.
What we need now is to start thinking and acting as a united country. We cannot afford these partisan rivalries and self-serving ambitions that continually delay important bills until the next election. We cannot afford to worry only about our party, our region, our state or our city. This is not how you can maintain a healthy republic.
Nor can we minimize the struggles of our political opponents. No matter what party we belong to, Christians should have no tolerance for immigrant bashing, self-interest games, or political theatrics that put the lives of those harmed on the line. The Bible calls us to love the strangers among us, to feed and clothe them (Deut. 10:18; Jer. 7:5-7). We cannot let our self-interest or contempt for the other side cause us to lose sight of this commandment.
Justin Giboney is an ordained minister, attorney, and president of AND Campaign, a Christian civic organization. He is the co-author of Compassion (and) Conviction: The AND Campaign’s Guide to Faithful Civic Engagement.
