We need to think more carefully in the immigration debate

I think when it comes to immigration, it is very easy to get things very wrong. We can all read stories in the media that are misleading. We can all use language that is misplaced, naïve and sometimes, offensive.

But there is such an urgent need for the church to think about this issue very carefully. Too often, sentiment and emotions create a fuzzy theology that fails to engage with the nuances and complexities of biblical teaching on this issue.

For example, you often read: “God loves the stranger”. And this is true! But as I hope to show you, who is the stranger? The Bible draws a distinction between someone who lives under the law of God and submits to the cultural norms of the nation and someone who refuses to do so.

Even the official numbers can get very confusing. For example, you might read about the number of people arriving on small boats into the UK. But are you clear about the distinction between immigrant and asylum seeker?

In this debate, as indeed in any, words and truth matter enormously. Both sides have a tendency to use naïve or inflammatory language. It does not help build understanding and it does not reflect the character of Jesus.

So really this long read is a plea for us to do better. To think more clearly and accurately and to speak more carefully and kindly.

I write this as someone who does not support an open border policy and who has big questions about our current immigration policy. If you share such concerns, we are not alone. New polling out just this week has revealed that immigration is now the number one issue voters are concerned about.

And it is not difficult to see why.

For years, concerns about immigration have been bubbling and capitalised on. 2023 saw a record high net migration of 900,000. By comparison, that’s the equivalent of the populations of Edinburgh and Manchester combined.

2022 saw a record number of people arriving via small boats (46,000). This year we’re projected to see an even higher number arrive in the UK by this means.

For years, successive governments have promised to sort it out. David Cameron pledged to reduce net migration to tens of thousands. Boris Johnson came up the Rwanda plan. Starmer has insisted he will ‘smash the gangs’.

Yet for all the rhetoric, the numbers have increased exponentially. In 2010, net migration was 252,000. In 2023, it was just short of one million.

And as the polling out this week shows, the public have become more and more concerned.

There was a brilliant illustration of this on daytime TV. Commenting on immigration, TV personality Rylan, a darling of the liberal media establishment, said:

“I find it absolutely insane that all these people are risking their lives coming across the Channel. And when they get here, it does seem – and I think this is why a lot of Labour voters as well are saying there’s something wrong – it feels like, “Welcome, come on in … Here’s an iPad, here’s the NHS in the reception of your hotel, here’s three meals a day, here’s a games room in the hotel. Have a lovely time and welcome.”

He faced an inevitable backlash on social media and subsequently issued a statement which included the line: “You can be pro-immigration and against illegal routes.”

As commentator Gareth Roberts wrote for the Spectator, Rylan has just made the unsayable, sayable.

Rylan’s comments might reflect the widening political concern about current migration levels. But we still need to think through the specific ways the church is challenged by this debate.

I think the challenge is seen in two distinct ways.

Firstly, views on immigration challenge our unity.

We all glory in our diversity, recognising that all humans are image-bearers of God. We all rejoice in free offer of the gospel, indiscriminately to all. We celebrate some cultural differences as a reflection of our Trinitarian God.

Yet while can unite around such core teaching, immigration policy is much harder to agree on because the Bible is not an immigration policy handbook! We have to work out principles and agree on how they apply in contemporary society. You need only look at how much disagreement there is over ‘secondary’ matters to know this will always cause tensions!

For some, the constant refrain in the Bible that God loves the stranger, combined with the reality that all are made in God’s image, means we must welcome asylum seekers, and maybe also illegal immigrants, to our shores. We must treat them well and for the most part, rejoice in how they enrich our multi-cultural, pluralist society.

But for others, what they really are afraid of is British values and British culture being eroded by the importation of foreign cultures. They darkly point to the rise of Islam in parts of Britain, or crimes committed by both legal and illegal migrants.

Then in the middle are the centrists who share sympathy with both sides but are less polarised. They want to be compassionate and a refuge for those fleeing persecution but are concerned about the scale of illegal migration.

You can see how far apart we might be on this issue. How do we speak well and disagree well about it in light of such stark differences?

I think we need to remember that no church, be it reformed, Pentecostal, charismatic or any other tradition has a total monopoly on truth!

Plus having different views on immigration does not impact our ability to act justly and show mercy to those in need.

I love hearing stories of churches reaching out, regardless of the different views in the congregation to immigration centres. They bring food, clothing and other practical support. In doing so, they are humanising and loving the stranger.

They may never see those people again but this is a fantastic example of how the church can unite around showing Christ’s love to ‘the other’.

But immigration also challenges our exegesis and application of biblical teaching to the current day. In this debate especially, I think too often, verses are flung into opinion pieces and blogs without careful attention to the details on the biblical text.

I’ve been hugely shaped in my thinking on this through the work of Egyptologist and Hebrew scholar, James Hoffmeier. In his book Migration in the Bible, he makes a very careful study of Hebrew words we translate as foreigner, or exile or stranger and he highlights a crucial distinction.

The two most common words are Ger and Nekhar.

When you look at the law of God, the former live within Israel, accept the law of God, are allowed to join Israel’s army and have a right to live in the land. When you read of God loving the stranger, it is normally this word that is being deployed.

The other word is Nekhar. This word applies to someone who does not have permission to live in Israel’s land permanently and therefore, Hoffmeier argues, is more akin to an illegal immigrant. Israelites were to treat them well, but they could charge them interest, whereas with legal migrants, this was forbidden.

In other words, failing to recognise this distinction leaves us with a potentially false assumption that the only Christian immigration policy is an open border. But I do not think this accurately reflects biblical teaching.

Don Carson, the biblical scholar sums up the value of Hoffmeier’s work:

“Doubtless some will question this or that detail of his reading of Scripture, but Hoffmeier’s book is a very healthy antidote to the merely sentimental readings that dominate much Christian thought on this complex and challenging issue.”

What Hoffmeier’s work helps us see is that biblically, a case can be made for distinguishing between those who have come to the UK and become permanent British citizens, and those who do not have an indelible right to be here (and in some cases, may have come illegally).

We can agree then that our immigration policy will treat the two groups distinctly. At the same time, from a Christian perspective, we must insist that all who come here, regardless of how, are treated with dignity. Underpinning our attitudes and policies in this area is the truth that all humans are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27) and crowned by God with glory and honour (Psalm 8:5-6).

Another key biblical truth is the responsibility government has to protect its citizens. This is taught in Romans 13:1-7 where we are told God gives government’s the sword of judgement. They must punish evil and commend the good.

If that is the teaching and principles, then let’s try and apply them to a case study, using Reform’s announcement this week as an example.

In doing so, I’m inviting you to agree or indeed, disagree with me! This is not the final word on the matter (it would be absurdly arrogant of me to presume it was!) and I recognise there will be gaps in my thinking.

Let’s start by summarising Reform’s main ideas:

• Deport 600,000 migrants over five years if it wins power.

• Make £2bn available to offer payments or aid to countries like Afghanistan to take migrants back. Sanctions would be considered on uncooperative countries.

• Build removal centres in remote areas of the country to detain up to 24,000 people in 18 months.

• Look to other countries like Rwanda and Albania to house migrants. British overseas territories are a possible fallback.

• Offer migrants the chance to return voluntarily and offer them £2,500 for doing so.

• Use a new Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill to achieve all this.

• Disapply international treaties like the Refugees Convention.

• Leave the European Convention on Human rights.

• Replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights which would only apply to UK citizens and those with a legal right to live in the UK.

If you remember we said governments have a duty to guard borders, then it is right and appropriate for Reform to put forward a plan. We should demand and expect other political parties to do the same if they are serious about government.

It is not having an immigration plan that is the issue. It is the contents of the plan where we might disagree. But credit to Reform for recognising the issue and bringing forward proposals to address it.

What should we make of the details?

Bearing in mind the biblical distinction between the ‘resident alien’ and the ‘foreigner’, one of my concerns is Reform’s failure (and they are not alone in this!) to more clearly distinguish between someone who is an illegal immigrant and someone who is an asylum seeker.

When people arrive on small boats, then invariably claim asylum. They seek permission to stay because of fear of persecution at home. An illegal immigrant, however, tries to live here for work, study, or to join family and is seeking permanent residence.

Not every illegal immigrant is a potential terrorist or criminal. In fact, some who come here are genuine asylum seekers and after their case is examined they are given refugee status and allowed to remain.   

As far as I could see in rhetoric that Reform used, not once did they acknowledge the circumstances and fears that compel people to take the risky small boat across the channel.

In his speech, Farage used language like this: “it [the small boats arriving] is an ‘invasion as these young men break into our country illegally.’

Such language is provocative and deliberate and from a Christian perspective it is lacking in suitable compassion and grace.

Another aspect of the proposed policy I found troubling was the plan to give money to other regime’s to encourage them to take people back. This might include giving money to the government of Afghanistan, a.k.a. the Taliban.

How can you justify giving money to such a wicked, oppressive and reprehensible regime? Their entire value-system ultimately wants to see the West overthrown. To give cash to such evil is an astonishingly terrible idea.

On the wider idea of 600,000 deportations over five years, there is some confusion over whether this includes women and children. Initially Reform said it did. Then under scrutiny, Farage suggested it did not.

Biblically, families are a hugely important social structure that God has created (Genesis 2:24). My view is that families should be kept together. Either all are allowed to stay, or if the claim is rejected or they arrive here illegally and are not claiming asylum, then the family should be refused entry as a whole.

Splitting up families is almost never a Christian response.

Does this mean we should support a completely open border policy? Personally, I don’t think we should. But our aim should be to design an immigration policy that has clear criteria for coming to the UK, using the Ukraine scheme or the Hong Kong scheme as patterns.

Even if you are turning people away because you want a controlled migration policy, you can do so in a way that is fair and compassionate. That means providing shelter and food whilst their cases are examined.

Ultimately, I offer these reflections willing to be challenged or questioned. Beware anyone who acts and speaks as if they have this question of a Christian position on immigration solved and sorted! I am trying to hold various biblical principles together. I’ll let you be the judge of how far I’ve succeeded.