Thank God for The Wall Street Journal editorial board. Now that's a phrase I never imagined uttering. Then again, who would have thought they'd be the institution to jump so eloquently to the defense of the pope from the likes of Lou Dobbs and Tom Tancredo?

During his visit last week, Pope Benedict XVI gave a consistent and prophetic call to U.S. Catholics:

I want to encourage you and your communities to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrow and trials, and to help them flourish in their new home. This, indeed, is what your fellow countrymen have done for generations. From the beginning, they have opened their doors to the tired, the poor, the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free." These are the people whom America has made her own.

Somehow this beautiful pastoral call prompted Lou Dobbs to claim the pope was "insulting our country," and Tom Tancredo to accuse him of "faith-based marketing." As if a global spiritual leader shouldn't have the right to offer guidance on how we view and treat our fellow human beings? It's not as if he was laying out policy prescriptions. If anything, the pope's words were a simple and powerful reminder of precisely the pastoral role Jesus calls us to. Not to mention our past as a nation of immigrants.

Today's WSJ said it better than I ever could have:

The pope welcomes immigrants because he's Catholic, not because they are. He isn't "marketing" his faith. He's practicing it.

Patty Kupfer is the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform campaign coordinator at Sojourners.

The "Haters" know how to use the Internet effectively, or at least that's what recent research by the Opportunity Agenda has shown in relation to immigration reform.

As an immigrant rights advocate, I was bothered by the recent results of a scan the New-York-based organization did of the immigration debate on the "Social Web" (i.e. social networks, YouTube, and the blogosphere). While I believe that many Americans "welcome strangers in their midst," the researchers at the Opportunity Agenda found that on the Web, anti-immigrant supporters and rhetoric outnumbered pro-immigrant activity by a ratio of two-to-one. This also found that most keyword searches produced more results for anti-immigrant than pro-immigrant activism.

You may have seen this in action: those making the most noise in the current national discussion about immigration often sound angry, indignant and outraged. Check out CNN or Fox News almost any day of the week and you'll see what I mean. So when the Opportunity Agenda and then the National Council of La Raza confirmed what I've seen in action on a daily basis, I knew I had to do my part.

One of the wonders of today's Social Web (or "Web 2.0 technology") is the infinite opportunity for collaboration. Through social networking online and off, I was able to gather talented folks with script-writing, filmmaking and acting skills and voila we pulled together a video. (Living in Los Angeles, where creative endeavor is in the air, didn't hurt either.) The result, "Thru the Plexiglass," is a humorous video short that follows a fictional documentary filmmaker/reporter on a visit to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office where he encounters a world lost in time. We chose the 1980s since that was the last time that the bulk of pro-immigrant reforms took place. By making it funny, I hoped that viewers would like it enough to share it with their friends and give it wings (or make it "viral" as they say). Now, more than 11,000 views later, it looks like we may be on to something:

We submitted the video to the Movement Vision Lab for their video contest on immigration and community values. They selected "Thru the Plexiglass" as their "breakthrough video." The overall winner of the contest "Arivaca: Life on the Border" shows a community that appreciates and values their immigrant neighbors. Perhaps the most touching part of the video is how one interviewee challenges us to ask, "What would Jesus do?" when meeting people crossing the desert from Mexico:

We encourage you to check out the videos, share them, and then make your own. As people of faith who respect the rights our immigrant neighbors, it's time to make our voices heard!

Will Coley is the founder of Aquifer Media, and has been an advocate and organizer with immigrants and refugees.

A few of us around Sojourners have been reading award-winning Haitian-born writer Edwidge Danticat since she published her first novel Breath, Eyes, Memory in 1994. Ten years later we were thrilled when she sent us a lovely vignette, Indigo Girl, which wepublished in December 2004. It might be the only short story Sojourners has ever published.

When we heard that her newest book, Brother I'm Dying, dealt with the death of Danticat's 81-year-old uncle, the Reverend Joseph Dantica, who died in the custody of U.S. immigration officials while seeking political asylum, we knew we wanted her to tell Sojourners that story—and what it says about the deadly debacle that is our immigration policy today.

In March, Brother I'm Dying won the National Book Critics Circle award for best autobiography. "I only hope my dad and uncle are proud," Edwidge told me. "The book, I feel, was written with them and for them so the award too is for them."

From her home in Miami, Danticat graciously responded to our interview questions:

BERGER: As an artist you are able to witness against injustice through the crafting of story and word as you have done in Brother, I'm Dying. Does the book vindicate the indignity and death your uncle suffered? How has the experience of writing the book changed you spiritually?

DANTICAT: People sometimes think, or say, that you should have closure now, Edwidge. You've written this book. Writing the book was part of a spiritual process which does not end with the book being published though. I was changed a great deal by this process, of course. I lost two very important people to me, my father and my uncle. They both suffered so much at the end, in part so we—my family here—can thrive. The gift I ended up with at the end was my daughter, who was born as these men were dying. I wouldn't say that the book vindicates the death or deaths completely. It's certainly the only vindication we've had, so I am glad I wrote it.

Read the whole interview ("Death By Asylum," Sojourners April 2008) here.

Rose Marie Berger is an associate editor at Sojourners.

The United States prides itself on being a country of laws. There is the settled conviction that here citizens obey the laws of the land and that those who do not are duly punished according to the nature of the violation. Christians who oppose the presence of undocumented immigrants turn to Romans 13 to emphasize that these people are breaking local and national laws and that the appropriate penalties should be applied. This passage is a quandary, too, for some of those who are more sympathetic to the plight of immigrants. They are torn between the harshness and contradictions of the laws and this biblical mandate to submit to the authorities.

Several observations can help put this passage into proper perspective. To begin with, Christians must recognize that their agenda is set in the previous chapter of Paul's letter. Chapter 12 tells believers not to be molded by the "pattern of this world" (12:2). Their lives should be characterized by service to others, love, and compassion—even toward enemies (12:3-21).

The authorities, however, have a different purpose and a different way of doing things, and this is spelled out in Romans 13. Christians are called to respect the government, says the apostle, but this does not mean sanctifying everything that it might legislate or do. Citizens of the U.S. have the right to disagree with the government, and, motivated by their principles, Christians do this in multiple ways: at the ballot box, through publications, by organizing educational, legal, and civic organizations that defend other points of view, by participating in peaceful protests of many kinds for a host of causes, and the like. Each of these actions in its own way expresses reservations about the state of affairs and the things that the government is mandating. Immigration is an example of an area where many believers diverge from the goals and enforcement of current legislation.

What is more, the U.S. government itself admits that legislation on immigration must be changed. Leaders from across the political spectrum recognize that what is in place now is not working. Recent efforts to craft a comprehensive immigration policy are clear evidence of the need for new immigration laws.

Therefore, to point to Romans 13 and adherence to the law in debates on immigration, without nuance or biblical and historical depth, simply will not do. Christians should search all of the scriptures for guidance in evaluating the development of immigration policy and engaging its challenges. From that foundation, Christians can begin to move forward to the legal issues. In other words, discussion on legality cannot be limited just to questions about complying with current laws, laws that all know are impractical and will soon be replaced. If these laws are problematic—theologically, humanely, and pragmatically—and if all sides agree that reform is needful, the call to submit to the authorities in Romans 13 should be rethought in fresh and constructive ways. Respect for the nation's present laws can be coupled with and informed by the move toward a new set of laws. Ideally, laws should embody the best moral principles of a nation. Clearly, immigration legislation does not measure up.

But what of immigrants who are Christians? How do they respond to Romans 13? They know that they are violating the law by living and working here. But, they also have experienced personally the law's inequities. For example, the government turns a blind eye to many employers because the country needs cheap labor, but then it makes access to social services increasingly difficult for these same workers. Hispanic immigrant believers admire the efficiency of the legal system of the U.S. and want to contribute to society, even as they work for a better life. Many do their best to obey the laws in every area that does not threaten their jobs, homes, and children's education and welfare. Many desire to be model 'citizens' as part of their Christian duty and in order to gain the respect of the majority culture in which they live. All fervently want a fair legal resolution of the situation.

Where can we go from here? If one evaluates immigration law in the U.S. as confused and unfair, and if one believes that these laws do not square with the teaching of the Bible and the ethical demands of the heart of God - let alone the historic openness of this country to foreigners - then these Christians will not say, "What is it about 'illegal' that you don't understand?" Instead, they might declare with the apostles, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God" (Acts 4:19).

Before this statement raises all kinds of alarm, let me make it very clear that I am not advocating civil disobedience on a large scale, just as most Christians who have strong misgivings about undocumented immigrants are not lobbying for a massive national deportation operation to rid the country of one and all. It is a narrow understanding of the nature of law and the Christian's relationship to human government that must be questioned. We need to move ahead towards constructive change with Christian humility and charity, with respect for those placed in authority over us but especially with an eye to the higher calling of the people of God to be a blessing to the world.

Dr. M. Daniel Carroll Rodas is a distinguished professor of Old Testament at Denver Seminary, and author of Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible (Baker Academic Books), from which this post is adapted.

The Hebrew Scriptures clearly call for the children of Israel to make room for the alien. The Israelites are reminded that they, too, were once aliens in a strange and distant land.

[For the Lord your God] …Who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.—Deuteronomy 10:18-19

The New Testament picked up this same admonition as Jesus explained to his disciples that they should treat the alien as they would treat him (Matthew 25:31-40).

St. Francis of Assisi taught his followers that Jesus is mystically present in the alien. They were told that when they look into the eyes of the stranger in their midst, they might see their Christ staring back at them.

Christians need to be reminded that in the only description that Jesus gave of judgment day, he specifically declares that God will inquire how we treated the alien. God will want to know, according to Matthew 25:35, whether or not we made room for "the stranger" to live among us.

Given such Biblical teachings, it is difficult to understand how so many Jews and Christians can call for harsh treatment of those 12 million illegal immigrants who presently reside within our national borders, and how they so often act as though U.S. citizens should not make them welcome.

There is little question that we need these men and women who have illegally entered our country. They are doing necessary work as farm laborers and in the manufacturing sectors of our economy. Elderly persons, like myself, should realize that millions of dollars taken out of these laborers' wages each week go into our depleting Social Security fund. The evidence is clear that overwhelming numbers of these undocumented workers are hardworking, decent neighbors who are contributing much to our nation's well-being.

Having made these points, we must go on to acknowledge that there are good people who justly point out that these illegal entrants have broken the law, and that granting them amnesty will only invite others to do the same. Furthermore, there are concerns about the possibility that criminals, drug pushers, and even terrorists, may be among those undocumented and illegal immigrants who daily come through our porous borders. There are fears that such undesirable persons pose a threat to our nation's security and to the safety of our fellow citizens.

As I reflect on the pros and cons of dealing with amnesty for these undocumented brothers and sisters, I have to start by asking why so many of them choose to enter our country illegally. Could it be that the U.S. has made it too difficult and too expensive for them to come in any other way?

Back in 1910, when my father emigrated to this country, he came as an impoverished Italian peasant. He liked to tell me that when he came through Ellis Island, he came with a few dollars in his pocket and little more than "the shirt on his back." He would go on to declare, in his broken English, that this country was, for him, a land of opportunity, and that he soon had a job and a future filled with hope.

The bad news is that today impoverished immigrants do not have the same opportunity that my father had. Nowadays, "the poor and huddled masses" who come to the U.S. have a much harder time, and the barriers that keep them living in our country usually appear insurmountable. If my father wanted to settle in the U.S. and get a job, given present requirements, he would have to get a "green card," if he wanted to be legal. Getting a green card would take somewhere around two years or more, and would likely cost him a couple thousand dollars in legal fees. (The legal language in the forms is so complicated that often it takes a lawyer to help applicants fill out the forms, costing up to $2000 in fees.) Not having enough money to support himself during the time he was waiting for his green card to be granted, he probably would have his hopes dashed to pieces. Not having the means to hire a lawyer, he probably would have to face the reality that what is required to enter into the American Dream is beyond his reach. In today's U.S., there would be little room for a poor man like my father. I have a sense that his desire for the better life that the U.S. could offer him just might tempt him to become an illegal immigrant.

What I propose is that our country should have a "high wall and a wide gate" at our borders. By a high wall, I mean that our borders should be secure. America should protect itself against drug pushers, criminals and possible terrorists. There should be a background check on every person who crosses into our country so that such undesirables would be kept out.

On the other hand, I believe that the gate should be wide. We U.S. citizens should make it fiscally possible for poor people who want to come and live among us. Green cards should be made available quickly and without the need to go through the kind of legal hoops that require lawyers. It seems to me that people in faith communities should work to create these conditions.

When it comes to dealing with those who are already here, I agree with those who claim that amnesty is not a good idea. These illegal immigrants did break the law, and amnesty would likely invite others to do the same. Law breakers should be dealt with seriously. Allow me to suggest some solutions to this predicament. I propose that undocumented entrants be granted green cards as soon as possible, but that they be required to pay a hefty fine for having broken the law. Also, they should be required to pay back taxes on their past earnings. But, knowing that it would be unlikely for them to have the money to cover these expenses all at once, I suggest that they have as much as 10 percent of their income deducted in the years that follow until such time as these fines and back taxes are paid off. Those who earn the higher salaries would pay off what they owe sooner, while those with lower salaries would have to take longer to fulfill their obligations.

The reality is that so many of these undocumented brothers and sisters are now being paid less than the minimum wage. With green cards in hand, they would be entitled to legal wages, which likely would be more than they are presently earning. Given this consideration, many, if not most, would come out with more money on pay days, in spite of the 10 percent that would be deducted by the government to cover their fines and back taxes.

To people with faith commitments who take the Bible as their guide for living, it seems as though this proposal could go a long way to treating undocumented entrants with God-ordained love and justice. I think that what I am proposing could satisfy those who want law breakers to pay their debt to society while, at the same time, satisfying those who are committed to showing God's grace to those who, full of hope, come to live among us.

Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University.

In Arizona it is clear that the immigration issue is more than just a political debate; human lives hang in the balance. Families we have come to love are finding themselves in increasingly desperate circumstances. For us the question to the church seems clear: "Who will speak for those denied a voice?" Locally the rhetoric has become intolerable as families - families in our churches, ministries, and neighborhoods - are described in angry, hateful, even subhuman terms. As Christians, regardless of our position on the issue, we will not accept this type of language and we must call our political leaders to a higher standard whether during national presidential contests or inside of committee hearings in our state houses.  That's why we're speaking out, as these Arizona pastors recently did:

As ministry leaders and pastors of churches in this county, we do not ask people of faith to prove their legal status before they can participate in fellowship.

In the process, we have watched the lives of immigrants become increasingly intertwined into the lives of our congregations.

This has given us an up-close and personal look at the human toll borne by the men, women and children caught in the crosshairs of politicians who use a broken immigration system as an opportunity to build personal political capital.
Instead of solutions, we are offered slogans from soapboxes. Worse still, we are offered poor uses of our state and county's limited resources that cannot begin to solve this clearly federal issue.

Local posturing is sure to only drive families further into the shadows - families we care deeply about.
When families in our fellowships are afraid to send their kids to school, go to the grocery store, talk to the police during an emergency or even answer a knock at the door, regardless of the nature of their immigration status, we must speak up.

The acidic level of fear created by a few opportunistic politicians is intolerable and putting all of us at greater risk.
A divided, polarized and frightened community works in complete contrast to the message of love and reconciliation we strive to communicate to our world.

I encourage you to read their entire statement. Solutions not slogans are what is needed right now and above all a call to remembrance that at the center of this issue sit human beings - human beings that are very important to us.

Ian Danley is a youth pastor with Neighborhood Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona.

In the past year, political expediency, xenophobia, and extremism defeated reason, compromise, and reconciliation in the immigration debate. The level of animosity directed towards the immigrant community, particularly the Latino community, stands at an all time high. We cannot stay silent.

The world once again bears witness to the actions taken, not just by our Congress, but by the people of the U.S. Will apathy, nativism, and xenophobia silence the voices of reason, compromise, family values, Judeo-Christian ethos, and border protection? It is time for reasonable U.S. citizens and for the faith community to rise up and clearly state that while we all desire to protect our borders and apply the rule of law, we will not embrace the nativist and discriminatory rhetoric articulated under the guise of border protection. We can stop illegal immigration, protect our borders, protect our values, and simultaneously protect the American dream only if we work within the framework of our Judeo-Christian heritage and repudiate all discriminatory and bigoted threads.

On a personal note, I am a U.S. citizen born in New Jersey; a Generation X-er who never would of believed that in my lifetime I would see the resurrection of bigoted, nativist, and discriminatory elements in our society. We must understand that time is of the essence. The time has come for the U.S., and particularly the U.S. faith community, to comprehend that at the border and in our communities, we have the poor, suffering, seekers, Samaritans, and strangers. Yet, above all, in vast majority, what we have at the borders and in the field, in our cities and in our farms, are our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez Jr. is president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, an organization of Hispanic evangelicals. Watch his recent conversation with Bill Moyers.

There's no denying it. Immigration has become, and will continue to be, a hot-button issue in the presidential season. The question that remains is – what kind of conversation will we have around immigration? We're not off to such a good start. Thus far, the debate has looked more like a shouting match defined by scapegoating and xenophobia. One clear result has been a feeling among Hispanics across the country, not just undocumented immigrants, that their lives are more difficult, due to the failure of immigration reform and the increasing attention to the issue.

This cannot be the right kind of conversation. How, then, can we begin to change it?

Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform hosted a teleconference yesterday as part of an ongoing effort to do just that. The New York Times Politics Blog, The Caucus, highlighted the diversity of the speakers, calling for moral leadership on an issue that clearly affects us all:

A Catholic bishop, inner-city Baptist minister, megachurch pastor, and Latino religious activist convened on a conference call sponsored by the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform on Friday to say that the 2008 candidates' actions aren't very akin to W.W.J.D. (What would Jesus do?)

The Christian organization agrees that immigration is a top priority this election cycle, but it wants candidates to approach the nation's illegal immigration issue from a moral perspective. It wants to see policies proposed that are based on preserving a decent life for those folks instead of what's most likely to win votes.

And in promoting legislation based on good Christian values, the religious leaders said it's imperative to steer clear of spiteful campaigning.

"It is clear that the hard work of crafting legislation and statutes that lead us toward a path of earned citizenship and effective enforcement remains a priority for all Americans," said Rev. Derrick Harkins, senior pastor at the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church in Washington. "It is just as clear that hateful, inflammatory, and destructive speech serves no purpose. No matter where one stands on the political spectrum regarding this issue, as Christians, we never possess the option to speak or act in a way that lessens the worth of any human being."

"Unfortunately, our presidential candidates are allowing themselves to be co-opted into the divisiveness of the debate," said Bishop Thomas Wenski, adding that he doesn't yet see a leader emerging from the pack.

"Mr. Romney has bet his presidential run on the issue," said Rev. Luis Cortes Jr., president of Latino poverty relief organization Esperanza. That's led Mr. Huckabee to take "a step to the right." Rev. Cortes also worried that the country's rising anti-immigrant sentiment, fueled in part by talk radio, is creating an increase in hate crimes against Hispanics.

"This issue isn't going away; and it won't go away with a few 'Let's just make the border stronger' comments," said Rev. Joel Hunter, senior pastor of the Northland parish in Longwood, Fla.

And in the spirit of Christmas, Bishop Wenski pointed out that after the baby Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph took him and fled the oppressive reign of King Herod: "Certainly, they didn't have visas to cross into Egypt."

Patty Kupfer is the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform campaign coordinator at Sojourners.

It happened again. A presidential candidate's debate in two languages. Just as the Democratic presidential candidates had done before, the Republicans have followed suit - a presidential candidates debate on Spanish-language channel, Univision. (Tom Tancredo was the only candidate who did not attend the debate). I blogged on the earlier Democratic debate and thought it only equitable to do the same again.

I think what is critical here in both nationally-televised debates is a healthy model of dialogue that is necessary on the national scene. This dialogue says we respect your culture and language. Allowing for your thoughts and words to be translated into another language can be a metaphor for inclusion and welcoming. I am not arguing that English should not be spoken (All the candidates answered in English and most immigrants work hard to learn English, cf: Pew research, etc.) What I am saying is that as a country we are looking for is conversations and policies that respect the dignity of the other.

As a person of faith, pastor, and follower of Jesus Christ, I am desirous of respectful debate and dialogue. On blogs, radio-shows, and political advertisements ideological and theological differences have often reduced some to more base temptations of demonizing the other (be they Republican, Democrat, immigrant, citizen, male or female). Frankly, this is not consistent with the gospel and a call to love our neighbor and even our enemies. Jesus even said, "Love your enemies." As a people we need to move beyond the childish temptation to dehumanize those we disagree with.

Dignity means you both speak and listen. Dignity may help us see someone who is radically different from us and call them by their name. Dignity transcends political ideologies and racial, ethnic, and geographic boundaries. Dignity is a faithful witness to a faith that says, "Por que de tal manera amó Dios al mundo (For God so loved the world….)"

Speaking in Spanish, Korean, Mandarin, German, etc. is a linguistic affirmation that God loves the world. Presidential candidates need not speak these languages but simply affirm the humanity and dignity of those who do.

Rev. Gabriel Salguero is the pastor of the Lamb’s Church of the Nazarene in New York City, a Ph.D. candidate at Union Theological Seminary, and the director of the Hispanic Leadership Program at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also a Sojourners board member.

There seems to be much concern lately over the people being referred to as "illegal immigrants." Let's define our terms: "Immigrant" - somebody who has come to a country and settled there. "Illegal" - forbidden by law. Concern about illegal immigrants has a familiar ring to us Native Americans. We have been empathizing with those concerns for over half a millennium.

Let's see ...Were the first immigrants to America illegal? By every definition - yes! But perhaps if they had a good reason it makes their trespass less offensive. What of their motives? The stated intent of some of the earliest European settlers in America was first to establish military superiority over the inhabitants and then "civilize" them by assimilating them into their form of government and converting them to a foreign religion. Such was the case in the earliest American colonies: From the First Charter of Virginia, April 10, 1606..."[we] may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government."

And talk about attitude ... they even came expecting us to learn their language. For example, I always thought, if you come to Cherokee country, you should speak Cherokee.

Even though the European immigrants said they were fleeing totalitarianism and searching for economic freedom, they did not all come peaceably or with good intent. Attempted genocide, physical force, coercion, and the imposition of colonial structures in order to establish dominance over Native North Americans became their mode of operation. Even many early American Christians' values were evident to the indigene by the settlers' disregard for human life. This supposed Christian witness was evident in their reactions when they arrived on the eastern part of this continent and found that epidemics had wiped out several nations. Such was the case with William Bradford's infamous statement, "The good hand of God ... favored our beginnings ... sweeping away great multitudes of the natives ... that he might make room for us" (Mann, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, page 56).

The devout Pilgrims did not weep for the lost Wampanoag, Patuxet, and Massachuset civilizations. Instead, one of their leaders, John Winthrop, made a "legal" declaration annulling any native claims to the land. "The Indians," he said, "had not 'subdued' the land, and therefore had only a 'natural' right to it, but not a 'civil right.' A 'natural right' did not have legal standing" (Zinn, A People's History of the United States, page 14).

Early American immigrants, now well established, may have conveniently forgotten that their ancestors did not come as law-abiding citizens, but were intent on making their own laws and disregarding any laws already established by the original Americans. They often justified the taking of innocent lives and the removal of the original inhabitants by their religion. I could go on ... believe me ... I could go on. Suffice it to say, when I look at the track record of the current immigrants compared to the first immigrants, I find much hope for the future of our country.

I also wonder if perhaps the earliest immigrants fear the current ones so much because they somehow understand that, historically, retribution often occurs. There is an old Indian adage that says, "whatever you do, comes back to you." I hope not ...

Instead, I would like to remind us of another old idea: "They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, "All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!" (John 8:7 NLT)

Rev. Randy Woodley is a Keetoowah Cherokee Indian teacher, lecturer, poet, activist, pastor and the author of Living in Color: Embracing God's Passion for Ethnic Diversity (InterVarsity Press). http://www.eagleswingsministry.com/

A reader asked about my post yesterday:

You say that your opposition is close to making Christian ministry illegal. Would you care to elaborate on this? What sorts of ministries are being made illegal? Where is this being done? What laws are being passed that would hinder ministry?

The best example is the law recently passed in Oklahoma which makes it a " felony for U.S. citizens to knowingly provide shelter, transportation, or employment to illegal immigrants." If a person comes to the door of a church-run homeless shelter, saying he is illegal and needs a place to sleep, it is a felony to offer him a bed. And churches in Oklahoma across the board have spoken against this new law.

The Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma this week passed a resolution saying,

"While we do not intentionally harbor or employ illegal immigrants in our work, neither do we screen or profile individuals before we minister to them in the name of Jesus." Robert Wilson, chairman of the resolution committee, offered an example: "If someone comes to my office and needs a ride to the hospital, my higher obligation is, 'Man, I'll give you a ride to the hospital.' It's not to say, 'Let me see your green card first before I help you.'"

Previously, the Most Rev. Eusebius J. Beltran, archbishop of Oklahoma City, and 10 parish priests signed a pledge of resistance, saying, "we are standing together in opposition and defiance of this unjust and immoral law." The evening before the law went into effect, Bishop Edward J. Slattery and more than a dozen priests celebrated a special Mass dedicated to immigrants at St. Francis Xavier Church in Tulsa. "As baptized members of Christ, we cannot be silent or complicit with those who abuse the God-given dignity of the children of God," Bishop Slattery said in his homily at the Mass.

The Oklahoma Conference of Churches, representing 16 Oklahoma denominations, called the law a "disastrous effort" in its statement of opposition. The conference includes the Roman Catholic, United Methodist, Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopal, and Evangelical Lutheran Church of America denominations, among others.

An Oklahoma attorney wrote in the Edmond Sun (OK) that the new law was a reminder of 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. William F. O'Brien said,

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 made it a crime for a citizen to harbor a runaway slave or to offer any assistance to slaves who had run away from their masters. … Many Northern clergymen had been offering assistance to runaway slaves through the underground railroad, and continued to do so after the law's enactment. … An analogy can be drawn between the Fugitive Slave Act and a recent enactment of the Oklahoma Legislature in the form of House Bill 1804. This law makes it a crime to harbor or transport illegal aliens in this state. That law serves to criminalize the work done by a variety of clergymen and women throughout the state of Oklahoma who minister to the needs, both spiritual and temporal, of undocumented workers and their families.

It's an appropriate analogy. Remember, the Fugitive Slave Act was federal law, runaway slaves in the North were illegal. But the church then, as now, answers to a higher law.

Here's a link to the press release that accompanied the event.

At its board meeting last month, the National Association of Evangelicals formally named Leith Anderson as its president. Anderson is senior pastor of Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and has been serving as interim president of the NAE for the past year.

I've had the opportunity to spend some time with Leith Anderson. I believe he is the kind of leader most needed these days, both for the NAE and for the wider evangelical community. He has both the heart of a pastor and the passion of a prophet, and he finds ways to be true to his convictions and be committed to bridge-building.

In a recent interview with Christianity Today, Anderson spoke of the NAE and public policy,

There is no shortage of evangelicals that have passion about every topic in contemporary life. The challenge here is not to find people who are interested. There are plenty of people who are interested. It's, How do we unite evangelicals in understanding what the issues are and having a moral perspective in how we approach them?

And, in developing that moral perspective, he noted

We have a document that is called "For the Health of the Nation." They are seven priorities that the NAE organizes around in terms of being a public voice.

[The document] relates to religious freedom, sanctity of human life, human rights, and creation care. It was first issued in 2003 and then reaffirmed by the NAE in March of this year. What we're doing is organizing many of the activities of the Washington office and the association around each one. These are big topics like justice and compassion for the poor and the vulnerable.

On immigration reform, one of the most controversial issues in America today, Anderson said,

I'm hoping that in the future we are also going to be able to engage more on the issue of immigration in America. It's a pressing issue that the country needs to unite around. We need to have a biblical voice. We need to recognize this is a high concern for the Hispanic community, which has a large numbers of evangelicals within it. Hispanic churches are the fastest growing in the nation and immigration is a top priority. Up to this point, NAE has not made any formal statements on it. I just anticipate this will be a growing priority and concern which fits under the topic of justice.

I congratulate Leigh Anderson on his new position, and look forward to working with him.

When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago have jumped on the bandwagon with their enforcement-only colleagues. Even a recent C-SPAN radio caller's biggest concern about the children's healthcare plan was: "Those illegal aliens better not have access to S-CHIP money." It saddens and exhausts me. I ask myself, "Why do I keep working for a cause that is so controversial, and often so negative?"

I recently had a very clear reminder of why I do. Four farm workers–Eduviges Gonzales, Silvia Huerta, Bautista Zamora, and Estela Ferrer–came to lobby Congress for a path to citizenship for their undocumented coworkers. Three are U.S. citizens and one is a legal permanent resident. They were part of an effort organized by numerous farm worker groups, including the United Farm Workers - the union founded by César Chávez.

Each of them spoke about shortages of workers creating big problems in the fruit and vegetable fields around the country. Then, they began to share their personal stories. Eduviges proudly held up her hand to show off a large callous on her palm below her middle finger and began her testimony:

This is proof of my hard work and dedication to this country. I have worked harvesting mushrooms in Salinas, California for 19 years. I am so proud of my work because I know that every mushroom I pick goes to the mouth of someone who needs to be nourished. I feel this very strongly in my heart.

At that point, tears began to roll down her cheeks, but her voice stayed remarkably strong. She went on:

I am here today because of our children. They see ICE detaining people on the evening news. My son asks me, "Why are they taking that person away? Did they pick bad lettuce or bad strawberries?" His fear weighs on my heart and I don't know what to tell him.

The congressional staffer was clearly moved. I explained that the bill we were supporting - AgJOBS - would put qualified farm workers on a path to permanent residency. It's just one piece of an incredibly complex issue facing this country. But for farm workers who have been slaving in our fields for years, it would be a tremendous step toward personal and economic security.

As we were going to dinner, Silvia asked me if I would be going back to live in California with my family. I told her that I lived in Washington, D.C., because I was working for comprehensive immigration reform, and it's important to have strong advocates here in the capital. "Oh, yes!" she responded, "in that case, we need you to stay right here. We need all the help we can get!"

Her words have been sinking in. Suddenly, my work in this long-term struggle for immigration reform seems like the obvious choice.

Patty Kupfer is the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform campaign coordinator at Sojourners.

I sat with Elvira Arellano at a press conference last weekend with representatives of our sanctuary families in Los Angeles. Several of the reporters asked her if she believed that she was the Rosa Parks of the immigrant rights movement. Her response was simple and clear – “I am Elvira Arrellano, just a mother who does not want to be separated from my child nor to take him away from his country.”

Of course, she is now deported and has to face the terrible choice of being apart from her son or keeping him from all of the benefits and opportunities that are his birthright as an American citizen.

Why did Elvira risk deportation by leaving sanctuary? Elvira’s stated purpose in risking deportation was to renew attention to the plight of the hundreds of thousands of families like hers – families that are facing the threat of being broken by a broken immigration system – and to issue an urgent call for comprehensive immigration reform.

We have been asked repeatedly about the impact of Elvira’s arrest on the New Sanctuary Movement. Across the country, the impact is consistent. We are saddened by her arrest, and we know that many immigrant families are experiencing greater trauma and fear as a result. However, her courage is also inspiring the families in sanctuary and their allies to strengthen our efforts to make visible the unjust suffering of children and their families.

We are committed to continue and to expand the New Sanctuary Movement because we believe that true immigration reform will require that many more native-born Americans and immigrants across the nation understand the contribution of immigrants to our society, the path to a humane and effective immigration system, and the current suffering of families.

We believe that this understanding will only come when non-immigrants know immigrant families personally as members of the same human family, beloved by God.

We believe that by continuing to make visible the faces and stories of immigrant families facing deportation, in the light of spiritual principles and moral values, we will, in God’s time:

• Change the hearts and minds of those who currently want to deport immigrant workers and their families.
  
• Inspire supportive community members to active and ongoing civic participation.
  
• Heal immigrant workers and their families who are traumatized by the current waves of hatred and rejection and enable them to participate actively in education and advocacy.
  

Rev. Alexia Salvatierra is the executive director of CLUE (Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice), an organization of religious leaders in Los Angeles county who support low-wage workers in their struggle for a living wage, health insurance, fair working conditions, and a voice in the decisions that affect them.

But for three hiatuses for school, I've lived my whole life in the Twin Cities, and my heritage and skin tone match the Lake Wobegon image of my city and state. I'm the descendant of German, Norwegian, Welsh, and British immigrants. I've even been known to utter "you betcha" on occasion. But the new faces of Minnesota have been on display in the wake of the I-35W bridge collapse on August 1.

Yesterday, nearly three weeks after the collapse, the remains of the final victim, Greg Jolstad, were recovered. The list of victims tells a tale of today's Minnesota. There's the very Scandinavian last name Engebretsen, which belonged to a middle-aged mom who worked for Thrivent Financial for Lutherans. But alongside the victims who were of Northern European descent (Hausmann, Holmes, Sathers, and Eickstadt) are surnames from around the globe: Trinidad-Mena (Mexican), Sacorafas (Greek), Sahal (Somalian), Peck and Chit (Asian), as well as Native American: Blackhawk (Winnebago).

They were white-collar and blue-collar, Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim, married dads, and single moms. The oldest was 60, the youngest was 2. One was pregnant. One had Down syndrome.

Their pictures are a mosaic of diversity.

Pollsters tell us that our quaint land here in the Upper Midwest is changing, that immigration is reshaping Lake Wobegon. But in the information age, those macro-polls are often lost on us.

However, when a bridge collapses during rush hour, it takes a tragic snapshot of just who lives around us.

"Who is my neighbor?" a questioner asked Jesus.

The bridge collapse gave me a new answer to that question.

Tony Jones is the national coordinator for Emergent Village.

Elvira Arellano, the young mother who sparked the New Sanctuary Movement and appears prominently in the current issue of Sojourners magazine, was arrested Sunday afternoon in Los Angeles and was deported to Tijuana, Mexico, within hours of her arrest. Arellano left her physical sanctuary in a Chicago church last week in order to make a more public case against the raids and deportations that are threatening to separate undocumented immigrants from their citizen children.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Federal authorities Sunday arrested Elvira Arellano on a downtown city street, ending a yearlong standoff that intensified recently after the illegal Mexican immigrant began what was to be a nationwide campaign to push for new immigration reforms.

Patty Kupfer is the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform campaign coordinator at Sojourners/Call to Renewal.

John Howard Yoder, a Mennonite theologian and significant influence on Sojourners, used to say that the world often helps the church remember what it means to be church. The observations of those outside often serve to return the church to its roots.

Recently, church leaders and faith based organizations have gotten a lot of flack over their outspoken support of comprehensive immigration reform. In light of Yoder, I've been mulling over the criticisms from Lou Dobbs and others, wondering if there are any lessons for us.

It took me awhile, but I think I found one. Dobbs loves to point out the "schism between the leadership of churches and religious organizations and their followers and members" over the issue of immigration. While the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches, and even the National Association of Evangelicals call for compassionate policies, many Christians express support for harsh, enforcement-only measures like last year's Sensenbrenner bill. Dobbs is right: Our leaders call for inclusion, while the rest of us say "kick 'em out!"

Clearly there is a communication breakdown, one that I think runs much deeper than failing to educate the people in the pews about immigration polices. Rather, I think this gap demonstrates the failure of church leadership to instill in its people a deeper understanding of their Christian identity.

I recently sat in on a Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform strategy session. Krista Zimmerman, who works for the Mennonite Central Committee, often travels to churches to discuss immigration. She lamented how many white churches fail to see the crisis as their problem, and how the discussion often breaks down into "us" and "them," even when talking about members of the same church body. She said we have failed to help the church realize it is an "us."

Theologically, she is exactly right. The church is to be our first family and primary allegiance, and we are to find our identity together in Christ above everything else. Being part of the church is to be a more determinative identity than any of the other ones we carry with us: nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It is "more real" than anything else about us. When we hold something about us to be more important than our Christian identity (i.e., our American citizenship), we are practicing idolatry and deceiving ourselves. It seems the church in the U.S. has largely forgotten this.

Sociologically, Zimmerman was spot-on as well. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 78 percent of undocumented immigrants (around 9.4 million people) currently in the United States came from Mexico or Central America. In another survey, Pew found that 87 percent of Latinos self-identify as Catholic or Protestant. This means that there are over 8.1 million Christians in the U.S. who are undocumented immigrants. The body of Christ, it seems, does not have all its papers.

With the collapse of the comprehensive reform bill in the Senate, it now seems that it will have to wait a little longer to get those papers, and many of our brothers and sisters will suffer and be deported in the meantime. This is to be lamented. At the same time, the government's callous inaction provides us with a new opportunity to be the body of Christ. The New Sanctuary Movement is one way churches are siding with our undocumented sisters and brothers, and boldly challenging our nation's inhumane immigration laws.

Most of us aren't there yet, though, as Lou Dobbs pointed out. Later in the meeting, Bill Medford of the United Methodist Church said what most churches need isn't political organizers as much as we need party planners—people who will bring white and immigrant churches together for fellowship. Out of this sharing, eating, and singing will grow a sense of unity and shared calling. Then when the homes of our brothers and sisters are raided, or they are threatened with deportation, we won't hesitate to act on their behalf ... because it's really our behalf.

Ultimately, how the church in the United States responds to the immigration crisis is less a matter of legislation and more a question of Christian identity and test of our discipleship.

Will our actions legi