One of the most exasperating aspects of the  current immigration debate is the persistent use of cliches, which have come to replace logical, factual arguments. Probably the worst purveyor of myths about immigration policy is the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, whose bishops and priests have repeatedly demonized Americans-including much of the Catholic faithful-who want to reassert control over their country’s porous borders. In addition to being one of the most outspoken proponents of amnesty, the Church has also resorted to the most baseless, vituperative smears in order to castigate those who support reasonable immigration policy; the exemplar being the recently retired Archbishop of Los Angeles, Roger Mahony, who likened SB 1070 to something you would see in Nazi Germany.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a Roman Catholic priest in the Bronx would help foreign nationals fighting deportation orders. However, as my friend informed me when I was sent the link to a New York Times profile of Father Vitagliano, this priest is now being accused of ignoring his responsibilities to clients seeking to remain in the United States permanently. The chaotic situation described in the aforementioned article will only be made worse if the policies advocated by the Roman Catholic Church, as well as other churches advocating various forms of amnesty, are implemented, which is why the recent statements by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin are so disturbing. The concerted effort by churches throughout this country to foist amnesty upon the American public, in spite of their congregants’ strenuous opposition to this idea, raises the question of whether they are acting in a religious or political capacity. The tax-exempt status accorded to churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other bodies of religious worship is premised upon the notion that they are not partisan political advocates, which Senator Durbin, as well as individuals like Father Vitigliano, seem to believe they should be. 

The disconnect between what these religious organizations market themselves as and what they are actually doing in many instances needs to be highlighted, especially to those churchgoers who are ignorant of what their leaders are doing in their name. Otherwise, the manipulation of our government to serve the purposes of those who seek to exploit it will only continue, to the detriment of Americans. 

One of the biggest misconceptions in the debate over our nation’s immigration policy is the notion that in order to be a good Christian or a decent Jew you need to support a policy of open borders in perpetuity. Although the link between a partisan political agenda and belief in the scriptural teachings of a given religion might be hard to discern for most neutral observers, the vast majority of the religious establishment in this country has nevertheless made this connection a focal point of their vocations.

Whether it’s a United Methodist Church in Chicago sheltering the noxious illegal alien Elvira Arellano,  the Roman Catholic Church’s seemingly implacable quest to foist amnesty upon a resistant American public, despite its utterly discredited leadership, or the Progress by Pesach campaign launched by liberal rabbinical leaders in this country, there would appear to be unanimity among America’s clerical and rabbinical hierarchy on the topic of immigration. 

I broach this subject now because of a fascinating discussion I recently had on Facebook with Professor Carol M. Swain, the brilliant conservative immigration enforcement activist and political science professor from Vanderbilt University. She obliquely alluded to some comments made by Richard D. Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission-whose logo is reproduced above-with which she vehemently disagreed. I could only assume that these comments were related to Mr. Land’s vocal support for amnesty legislation. 

Although the discrepancy between the views of religious leaders and their congregants, re: immigration, has been empirically demonstrated by respected pollsters, there is still a tendency among the public to defer to men and women of the cloth when they begin to expound upon our obligation to the “pilgrim” or “refugee.” This is an egregious error in judgment, in my opinion.

Despite the fact that the Lutheran Church is now often associated with liberal causes-such as the sanctuary movement revived by open borders advocates masquerading as pastors-this reverend makes one of the more compelling, persuasive Christian arguments in opposition to the movement aiding illegal aliens living in this country. And as hard as it may be to conceive of, there are other voices that dissent from the current orthodoxy, as this essay by Mark Tooley, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, demonstrates.

The notion that Judaism or Christianity are synonymous with a specific immigration policy advocated by liberal political figures with religious facades is simply false. The more people expose the fallacies in this way of thinking the closer we’ll be to having a real examination of the problems that porous borders and weak interior immigration enforcement pose to our country. The leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are on the wrong track, and they need to be told so by their flock. Unfettered immigration and indifference to criminal behavior are not Christian values, and no one should be deceived into believing they are.