Weekly Web Roundup (2/4/17)

Photo Credit: yorgak

Here is a collection of items -- including several that address politics and social media -- that caught my attention this past week:

7 Questions to Ask Before Posting about Politics on Social Media by Scott Slayton (One Degree To Another)

"Let’s pretend that what you want to say about politics on social media should be said. Now you need to consider if you are the right person to say it. Do you have an insight into this issue that you haven’t seen somewhere else, or are you merely repeating an argument you read in another place? Do you have a role or responsibility where people are looking to you for guidance? Why should you be the person to say what you are about to say?"

2017: A Year of Digital Detox by David Murray (HeadHeartHand)

"I’m utterly convinced that vast numbers of Christians are dangerously addicted to digital technology. It has way too big a place in our lives and it’s not just damaging us; it’s destroying us. Those who can get this under control are going to be uniquely placed to excel — relationally, vocationally, educationally, and financially. There is no surer way to a massive “competitive advantage.” But control (or lack of it) of our devices is also the biggest determinant of our spiritual health, growth, and usefulness. If we want to grow in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, we must grow in digital self-discipline."

How To Avoid Being Psychologically Destroyed By Your Newsfeed by Ann Douglas

"Connect with other caring citizens who share your concern about what's happening in our country and our world. Talk to other people you know who may be going through an especially difficult time right now -- especially members of vulnerable or marginalized communities. Let them know that you will be there to support them and that you care. Smile at strangers. (Assume their good intentions unless proven otherwise.) Look for opportunities to build bridges, not walls. Finally, reach out for other types of support if you feel like you're really struggling. Self-care isn't selfish; it's self-preservation. You need to take extra good care of yourself right now."

On Signalling Versus Displaying Virtue in a Trumpian Age by Derek Rishmawy

"I know that in many instances, especially after a tragedy or an outrage, there’s a pressure to tweet or post about it to make sure everybody knows that I too care. I too am saddened, or grieved. I fear that at times when I remain silent, or have found out about something late, I’ll be thought callous for having not said anything. Of course, with any fancy new word or concept, it can be used cynically. In which case, for those with a more jaded eye, or on the other side of a particular issue, all of the protests, tweets, and so forth are basically just virtue-signalling. This critique tends especially to be leveled by conservatives against progressives whose tribal identification seems to encourage that. And since Newton’s Third Law generally applies to these sorts of things, I have now seen various progressives complain about the very notion of critiquing public displays of virtue. Why would virtue be anything to critique? Seems worth emulating and encouraging. Indeed, we ought to be cynical about the cynicism and see nothing but self-protection in this."

Campus Ministries Race to Keep Up with Record Number of International Students by Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra (The Gospel Coalition)

"The foreign students flooding into U.S. universities are, in some ways, the ideal ministry field. Many are bright and affluent, able to afford some of the world’s top schools. That means they’re also likely future leaders, one day returning home to take influential positions. And generally comfortable with and curious about religion, they’re not hampered by the apathy or antagonism some American students feel toward Christianity. Their influence can be far-reaching."

Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis by Alex Nowrasteh (Cato Institute)

"Including those murdered in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil that was committed by a foreigner over the 41-year period studied here is 1 in 3.6 million per year. The hazard posed by foreigners who entered on different visa categories varies considerably. For instance, the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year. By contrast, the chance of being murdered by a tourist on a B visa, the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year."

The Bishop Eddie Long I Knew by John Blake (CNN)

"Who am I to say how anyone should face a terrifying illness? Sometimes hope is all people have; let them believe what they want if it helps them get through the night. But there was something undeniably sad about Long not being able to level with those at New Birth who'd stuck by him when everyone else had fled. I suspect some of that inability comes from the prosperity theology he preached, which is pervasive in contemporary churches. I've heard scholars call it a heretical belief that distorted the life of Jesus. I think it fails on another level: It doesn't equip people to deal with loss. If you preach that wealth and health are a sign of God's favor, what do you do when you begin to lose both, as Long did?"

Teacher Has Personalized Handshakes With Every Single One of His Students (Good Morning America)

Why do I think this is an unbelievably cool thing? Because this young teacher demonstrates to each of his students that they have value in his eyes, that they are unique and that they are known.

Weekly Web Roundup (10/15/16)

Photo Credit: bjmccray

Due to Hurricane Matthew storming through Florida last weekend, I did not write a "Weekly Web Roundup" post last Saturday. So here are some interesting stories from around the web that I've seen during the past couple of weeks:

Seeking Clarity in This Confusing Election Season: Ten Thoughts by Kevin DeYoung (The Gospel Coalition)

Many evangelical Christians find ourselves in a quandary as to whom should receive our vote for president this election, or even if we should vote at all. Pastor Kevin DeYoung offers some helpful things to consider.

It's Never Too Soon to Talk about Race in Your Church by Jemar Tisby (Christianity Today)

"I desire for churches that are predominantly white right now, but [are] looking to become more diverse, [to] do the groundwork first. You’ve got to pull the weeds. You’ve got to break up the soil. You’ve got to cultivate the land that would make it amenable to planting the seeds that would bear fruit of diversity. . . . The minority shouldn’t be the first one at your church to broach topics of race and diversity. That should’ve already been done by the leaders, and it should’ve been done in such a way that they’re shepherding the congregation through those issues."

When Compassion is Exhausting by Melanie Dale (The Mudroom)

"But for our passions, for the things burning deep in our souls keeping us up at night moving us to tears liquefying our insides, it’s going to take more. It’s going to take partnering with really smart local people who have big plans for their own communities. It’s going to take lawyers and therapists and social workers. It’s going to take a lot. Which is why you can’t care about everything because the thing you need to care about the most needs your attention over the long haul. So find a thing and dig deep."

InterVarsity Asks Staff to Choose a Stance on Sexuality by Kate Shellnutt (Christianity Today)

One of our partner ministries, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, made the news this past week when the response to a 20-page paper on their theological beliefs on human sexuality was made known. A number of their staff members will be leaving IV as a result. Please be in prayer for both the leaders of InterVarsity and all the staff members affected.

What it Means to be Black in the American Educational System by Kevin O’Neal Cokley (The Huffington Post)

"The results of a recent survey by the Pew Research Center underscore this point. The survey found that black Americans with some college experience are more likely to say that they have experienced discrimination compared to blacks who did not report having any college experience. Additional survey results revealed several differences between blacks with college experience versus blacks without college experience. For example, in the past 12 months, 55 percent of people with some college experience reported people had acted suspicious of them, compared to 38 percent of those with no college experience. Similarly, 52 percent of people with some college experience reported people had acted as if they thought the individual wasn’t smart, compared to 37 percent of people with no college experience."

Maps Shows History of US Immigration

The topic of immigration has been of great interest during this election season. This animated map from Business Insider illustrates immigration patterns to the U.S., including which countries were allowed to send people to the U.S. and when they were allowed to do so.

Widening Gap in U.S. Between Older Whites & Younger Minorities

Photo Credit: Pedro Ribeiro Simões

From Don Lee of the Tribune Washington Bureau:

"As the U.S. population ages and becomes more ethnically diverse, the country is seeing a widening demographic gap between older whites and young minorities — a shift with significant social and economic implications. 

Non-Latino white Americans made up almost 79 percent of the country’s population of people more than 65 years old, as of last July, but the white share of residents under age 15 slipped further, to 51.8 percent, according to an analysis of new Census Bureau data released Thursday. 

By comparison, Latinos accounted for 7.5 percent of people in the U.S. over 65, but almost 25 percent of those under 15. The large population gains of Latino and other minority youths mean nonwhites not only will have more voting clout in the years ahead, but will also constitute the labor force of tomorrow. 

Yet this racial generational gap, particularly large in California and the Southwest, also points up the potential challenges as the U.S. relies on younger minorities to pick up the slack of an aging nation, including supporting social programs for a mostly white senior population. 

“What we are seeing here is just the tip of the iceberg as white baby-boomers continue to retire, and whites make up ever-smaller shares of the childbearing population,” said William Frey, a Brookings Institution demographer who analyzed the annual census data on population by age and race. 

“It suggests that even greater priority should be given to providing these young minorities education opportunities and other resources to be successful as members of the labor force,” he said. 

The new census release shows how economics can drive population and migration trends. The nation’s foreign-born population grew by 843,145 people from July 2012 to last July, down about 5 percent from the previous 12-month period. The drop came mostly from Latinos, whose immigrant population growth has been overtaken by Asians. Part of the decline in the foreign-born Latino growth reflects demographic and economic changes in Mexico, said scholar Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda."

To read more on this story please click here.

Honoring God By Honoring Immigrants

Photo Credit: Boss Tweed

One of my favorite bloggers of late is Christena Cleveland. Christena does a great job of bringing a biblically-based perspective to issues that affect the Church such as culture, racial reconciliation and multi-ethnicity. She is currently doing an enlightening series that's named "Beyond Multiethnic" where she is "talking about ways that we can honor the image of God in diverse people."

Matthew Soerens recently offered a guest post on Christena's blog entitled Crossing Borders in the Church: On Embracing Undocumented Immigrants that I think is worth a read.

A highlight:

"Several months ago, I was invited to speak at a large, conservative Southern Baptist church that is, in some ways, a microcosm of American evangelicalism as a whole.  The crowd of several thousand at the first Sunday service was distinctly older and almost entirely white, but at the morning’s second service, the senior pastor removed his tie and delivered exactly the same sermon to an audience that was much more ethnically diverse.  Later that day, under the same roof, the church hosted worship services and Bible studies in Creole, Russian, Spanish, and Portuguese.  Within that one local church—as is true of the Church as a whole in the United States—coexist native-born U.S. citizens, naturalized citizens, lawfully-present immigrants, and undocumented immigrants, and with them a broad range of views on immigration policy. 

One of the church’s pastors related to me that, the previous week, a young Hispanic man had come forward at the end of the service seeking prayer. He shared, hesitantly, that he was facing deportation. He’d talked to lawyers and tried everything he could to resolve his situation, but it seemed inevitable that he would be separated from his family.  The pastor prayed for God’s provision and, then, as the man turned to leave, added, “We just want you to know how welcome you are at our church.” 

“With all due respect,” the man replied, “if people at this church knew I was ‘illegal,’ they would hate me.” 

The pastor assured him that their church—which, to their credit, had done far more than the average congregation to embrace immigrant communities—loved him.  But he went home, he told me, shaken by the man’s comment: what was it about his church that had conveyed to this man that people would despise him if they knew he lacked legal status? 

However, if we consider the rhetoric that some in our society, including some Christians, have used to discuss the topic of illegal immigration, the young immigrant’s conclusion that many of his native-born Christian brothers and sisters might hate him seems quite logical.  When presidential primary candidates compete to see who can be harsher on undocumented immigrants and the TV pundits say they’re doing so to win the “evangelical vote” in the Iowa Caucus, the undocumented within our churches notice. When the church’s parking lot is marked with bumper stickers for a candidate who proposes—to wild applause—the construction of an electrified fence that would kill those who attempt to unlawfully enter the United States, the unintentional message is: “I’d rather you’d be dead than sitting next to me at church.” 

Whenever those associated with Christianity blame the undocumented for the country’s economic trouble (despite nearly unanimous economic data to the contrary), imply that most are criminals or terrorists, or compare them to rats, cockroaches, or any other animal, the message conveyed to the undocumented within our congregations—even if very few would convey such a message directly—is that “God loves you…but we loathe you.” 

Some sobering thoughts to consider.

To read the rest of Matthew's post please click here.

Current Insights Into The Values Of U.S. Hispanics

Photo Credit: Bread for the World

From Barna:Hispanics:

"After significantly influencing the 2012 presidential election, Hispanics captured the attention of the nation’s leaders and media. Now, as the debate over the future of immigration continues, political liberals and conservatives alike may be surprised to learn about the values and priorities of today’s Hispanics in the U.S. 

Research from Barna: Hispanics, in partnership with the American Bible Society, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, and OneHope, reveals that the faith and social values of Latinos may be more conservative than many cultural observers realize. As America’s fastest growing demographic segment, Hispanics demonstrate high commitments to the Christian faith and to traditional concepts of family. 

In fact, foreign-born Hispanics who currently reside in the U.S. are often more socially, spiritually, and politically conservative than are those Hispanics who are citizens. The implication is that the longer the Hispanic community experiences U.S. cultural norms, the less socially conservative its members become. In the broadest sense, this creates a fascinating paradox for policymakers and politicians: social conservatives stand to gain more allies by pushing for aggressive immigration reform, while liberals who advocate for reform are likely to find fewer allies on social and moral issues among foreign-born Hispanics who are given a path to citizenship. 

Given their relationship-driven culture, it is perhaps not surprising that Hispanics in the U.S. place high value on the traditional family. Three-quarters of all Latinos in the U.S. say that the traditional family is the main building block of a healthy community (78%). Seven out of 10 believe it is best for children to be raised by parents who are married to each other (69%). In addition, Latinos remain markedly committed to preserving the traditional family structure. Half say they are “very concerned” about the breakdown of Hispanic families. 

When it comes to typically hot-button social issues, homosexuality and abortion, most Hispanics embrace conservative points of view. On the issue of same-sex marriage, considered an important voting issue to many evangelical Christians, two-thirds of Hispanics say marriage should be defined as a relationship between one man and one woman (66%). And the majority of Hispanics in the U.S. (73%) believe that adoption or parenting are better choices than abortion for a woman who is not ready to be a mom."

To read the rest of the Barna report please click here.

1 Out of 5 Non-Christian North Americans Do Not Know Any Followers Of Christ

Photo Credit: Demo

A recent study from Gordon-Conwell's Center for the Study of Global Christianity has found that a surprising 20% of all non-Christians in North America do not personally know anyone that identifies as a Christian.

Abby Stocker of Christianity Today reports on the study:

"The biggest factor in explaining why so many North American non-Christians don't know Christians is immigration, [Missiologist Todd M.] Johnson said. The U.S. attracts more Buddhist, atheist, and agnostic immigrants than any other country in the world. It ranks second for Hindu and Jewish immigrants, and seventh for Muslim immigrants. 

But immigrants are also keeping the percentage of those who don't know a Christian from going higher. That's because the U.S. also attracts more Christian immigrants than any other country. And the region that sends the most immigrants to the U.S. is (by far) Latin America, where 90 percent of non-Christians know Christians. (In the CSGC study, Mexico was categorized as Latin America, not North America. As per U.N. categorization, North American countries included Greenland, Bermuda, Saint Pierre & Miquelon, Canada, and the U.S.) 

Migrants move into enclaves and don't venture out. But even Christians who live close to Chinatowns and Little Italys don't often venture in, Johnson said. 

Separation between religious groups isn't limited to the United States and Canada. But North America has a unique opportunity to connect across religious lines, he said. 

"The United States is a very strategic place for people to interact," he said. "It's ironic in a place with all the freedoms to interact that people don't do it. In light of the deficit of contact, what better thing could happen than to have a bunch of people move into your neighborhood and build houses of worship?"

To read more of Stocker's article please click here.

Ethnic Minorities Comprise Half of America's Under-5 Age Group

Photo Credit: woodleywonderworks

From Hope Yen of Yahoo News:

"In a first, America's racial and ethnic minorities now make up about half of the under-5 age group, reflecting sweeping changes by race and class among young people. Due to an aging population, non-Hispanic whites last year recorded more deaths than births. 

These two milestones, revealed in 2012 census estimates released Thursday, are the latest signs of a historic shift in which whites will become a minority within a generation, by 2043. They come after the Census Bureau reported last year that whites had fallen to a minority among newborns. 

Fueled by immigration and high rates of birth, particularly among Hispanics, racial and ethnic minorities are growing more rapidly in numbers than whites. The decline in the U.S. white population has been occurring more quickly than expected, resulting in the first "natural decrease" for whites — deaths exceeding births — in more than a century, census data show. For now, the non-Hispanic white population continues to increase slightly, but only because of immigration from Europe. 

Based on current rates of growth, whites in the under-5 group are expected to fall below 50 percent this year or next, said Thomas Mesenbourg, the Census Bureau's acting director. 

"This is the tipping point presaging the gradual decline of the white population, which will be a signature demographic trend of this century," said William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. "More so than ever, we need to recognize the importance of young minorities for the growth and vitality of our labor force and economy." 

The imminent tip to a white minority among young children adds a racial dimension to government spending on early-childhood education, such as President Barack Obama's proposal to significantly expand pre-K for lower-income families. The nation's demographic changes are already stirring discussion as to whether some civil rights-era programs, such as affirmative action in college admissions, should be retooled to focus more on income than on race and ethnicity. The Supreme Court will rule on the issue this month. 

The government projects that in five years, minorities will make up more than half of children under 18."

To read the complete article please click here.

Evangelical Leaders Push For Immigration Reform

Photo Credit: murphydean

From CNN.com's Belief Blog:

"When the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez talks about immigration, it is as someone who has witnessed the way a religious community is affected when a family is torn apart by deportation. “It is personal for me,” Rodriguez said, describing deported friends and congregants as "lovely people. These are wonderful, God-fearing, family-loving people.” 

Rodriguez, the head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, has a naturally boisterous voice that booms with authority. When he speaks about immigration, passion oozes out of every syllable. But his voice softens as he speaks of those close to him who have been deported: an associate pastor's wife, a friend from Sacramento, California, a well-known congregant - the list seems committed to memory. 

Even as he relives the heartache, the pastor seems hopeful, if not optimistic. Rodriguez, along with a number of other high-profile evangelical leaders, many of whom who have worked on immigration reform for decades, are betting that 2013 represents the best opportunity they've ever had to get meaningful reforms passed. Proof of their confidence: A coalition of evangelical groups is launching what many are calling the “largest ever grass-roots push on immigration.” 

“We have a moral imperative to act,” Rodriguez exclaims. “This is the year. This is the evangelical hour to lead in a justice issue.” 

In the mind of many evangelical leaders, the reverend is right. The coalition is called the Evangelical Immigration Table and it is brought together a diverse mix of evangelical groups, including the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the National Association of Evangelicals, Sojourners and Focus on the Family. Though the groups began holding broader discussion two years ago, Monday will serve as the campaign's first concerted push on immigration, with the goal of getting meaningful immigration reform through Congress in 2013. 

“I think we have a window of opportunity in these first months of 2013,” Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, told CNN. “I think there is a real, new conversation on immigration reform.”

To read the rest of the article please click here.

Asians Are Fastest Growing Racial Group in U.S.

Photo Credit: centinel

From Yahoo News:

"Asians are the fastest growing race group in the United States, reflecting a surge in immigration from the entire region over a decade, the US Census Bureau said Tuesday. 

As part of an ongoing analysis of the data it reaped from its 2010 census, the federal agency said those who identified themselves as Asian alone, and not mixed race, grew by 43.3 percent from a decade earlier. 

That was more than four times faster than the rate of growth for the overall US population, which grew 9.7 percent in the same period to 308,745,538. Some 14.7 million people, or 4.8 percent of the total population, identified themselves as Asian alone. Another 2.6 million, or 0.9 percent, said they were Asian in combination with another race group, most commonly white. 

"Net international migration is the biggest component of the change in the Asian population," Elizabeth Hoeffel, a statistician in the Census Bureau's population division, told reporters in a conference call. 

For statistical purposes, the United States defines an Asian as someone "having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent."
Those who identified themselves as either Asian alone or Asian mixed with another race grew by at least 30 percent in all states except Hawaii, where they already made up a majority of the population."

Please click here to read the complete post.

(h/t to Holly Sheldon for the link.)

A Perspective On Immigration From The Old Testament

Photo Credit: Edu-Tourist

One of the most pressing issues within contemporary society is the topic of immigration. This important subject is not just something for our government to consider but it is fitting for the Church to decide on how we will engage this matter. It is easy to simply view this concern through political lenses but those of us that are Christians must primarily look at this through a biblical grid.

For a thoughtful approach to considering how we can think about this matter, I recommend M. Daniel Carroll R.'s book, Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. Carroll takes a balanced and insightful study on immigration and offers a compelling argument on how we can look to the Scriptures to shape our opinions on this pressing issue. Within the book, he examines the history of Hispanic immigration in the United States, looks at immigration as discussed in both the Old and New Testaments and sets forth some suggestions on how we can address this issue in modern times.

Within his overview of immigration as viewed in the Old Testament, Carroll adroitly brings a humanity to why people leave their homeland for another:

"The Old Testament is full of accounts of people on the move or who have settled in other places. Many reasons are given for this movement, and these migrations - whether of individuals or of large groups - span centuries. They are part of the fabric of biblical history - and ours. This realization offers a lesson to the majority culture. Migrations are a recurring phenomenon. According, Hispanic immigration to the United States is but another chapter in the very long book of the annals of humankind. That being the case, one can step back and try to appreciate why people, then and now, are compelled to go to another place.

The text gives a human face to the migrants. They are tested and discriminated against; they want to have a home and provide for their families; they worship God; they work at different jobs, some not by their own choice; others are gifted in special ways, rise to positions of authority, and do marvelous things for the country in which they live; some long to return to their homeland while others choose to stay in their new country; and they wrestle with how to coordinate their backgrounds with the different culture that surround them - the issues of language, customs, faith, politics, economics, and laws. These are also flawed individuals. They sin; they are imperfect in all kinds of ways.

In other words, the Bible offers the reader very realistic scenes and situations and amazingly true-to-life characters. These immigrants and refugees are people above all else, people caught up in the trials, tribulations, and joys of life. It is everyday life, but the text teaches that these lives are set against a much bigger canvas. These people are part of the plan of God for the unfolding of world history. Consequently, the majority culture must evaluate its reaction to immigrants. The Old Testament recounts compassionate actions of some as well as the cruelty of others toward foreigners. Herein are examples, good and bad, to be followed and avoided."

Some good thoughts to ponder...

What It Means To Be Both American and Mexican

Photo Credit: lndhflf72

The United States is a nation of immigrants. Whether we came to this country ourselves or our ancestors came here centuries ago, most of us have our roots in some other country. While it has been less challenging for some (especially those of European descent) to assimilate into American culture, it has not been found simplistic for all.

For those from other nations, particularly from non-English speaking countries, a choice to intentionally maintain aspects of their cultural distinctiveness for their children and grandchildren makes acceptance into American society more difficult.  Then there are others who have wished to fully assimilate into American culture but have been kept from doing so due to skin color, religion, accent, country of origin or some other issue not under their control.

Ruben Navarrette, Jr., a writer for CNN.com, has written an informative piece on the challenges he faces as an American of Mexican descent.  Navarrette's wife grew up in Mexico, came to America as a child and is now a U.S. citizen. He writes of their mixed-marriage:

"Ironically, long before I met my wife, while growing up in central California, I never considered myself anything but a Mexican. Not a Mexican-American, but, in ethnic shorthand, a Mexican. Just as important, it was how others saw me and people like me. Adults referred to the "Mexican" part of town or talked about the high school's first "Mexican" quarterback or first "Mexican" homecoming queen.

Years later, when I was admitted to Harvard, jealous white classmates informed me: "If you hadn't been Mexican, you wouldn't have gotten in."

Not Mexican-American. Just Mexican.

My readers do the same. Not long ago, one accused me of welcoming the "Mexican invasion ... because you're Mexican."

OK, so I'm Mexican. Just like my friends in Boston who call themselves Irish, and friends in New York who call themselves Italian, and friends back home in Fresno who refer to themselves as Armenian.

Cool. I'm Mexican, right?

Wrong, says my wife. Wrong, wrong, wrong. To her, I'm an American, plain and simple. Born and raised in the United States, how could I be anything else?

She's the Mexican. She came to the United States with her mother and three sisters when she was 9 years old. Later, she returned to Mexico for two years of high school, and she stayed there for four years of college before returning to the United States for graduate school. In addition to being fluent in English, she speaks, reads, and writes Spanish with an awesome proficiency that I could never attain.

"How can you be Mexican?" she asks. "If you went to Mexico and identified yourself that way, people would laugh. They'd ask where in Mexico you were from, and they'd expect you to answer in perfect Spanish with no accent."

She's right. It's like the old saying that a Mexican-American is treated as an American everywhere in the world except America, and as a Mexican everywhere except Mexico."

You can read the rest of Navarrette's post please click here.

For further insights on the struggle that Mexican Americans face, check out this clip from the movie Selena, a biopic about the late Tejano singer, featuring a young Jennifer Lopez.



Thanks to my friend, Jim Sautner, for the link to the article.

How The Gospel Shapes The Christian's View On Immigration

Photo Credit: Brian Auer

From Russell Moore:

"The Christian response to immigrant communities in the United States cannot be “You kids get off of my lawn” in Spanish. While evangelicals, like other Americans, might disagree on the political specifics of achieving a just and compassionate immigration policy, our rhetoric must be informed by more than politics, but instead by gospel and mission.

I’m amazed when I hear evangelical Christians speak of undocumented immigrants in this country with disdain as “those people” who are “draining our health care and welfare resources.” It’s horrifying to hear those identified with the gospel speak, whatever their position on the issues, with mean-spirited disdain for the immigrants themselves.

This is a gospel issue. First of all, our Lord Jesus himself was a so-called “illegal immigrant.” Fleeing, like many of those in our country right now, a brutal political situation, our Lord’s parents sojourned with him in Egypt (Matt. 2:113-23). Jesus, who lived out his life for us, spent his childhood years in a foreign land away from his relatives among people speaking a different language with strange customs.

In so doing, our Lord Jesus was re-living the life of Israel, our ancestors in the faith, who were also immigrants and sojourners in Egypt (Exod. 1:1-14; 1 Chron. 16:19; Acts 7:6). It is this reality, the Bible tells us, that is to ground our response to those who sojourn among us (Exod. 22:21; Ps. 94:6; Jer.7:6; Ezek. 22:29; Zech. 7:10). God, the Bible says, “executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt” (Deut. 10:18-19).

This is much more than a “political” issue, abstracted from our salvation. Jesus tells us that our response to the most vulnerable among us is a response to Jesus Himself (Matt. 25:40). God will judge those who exploit workers and mistreat the poor. No matter how invisible they seem to us now, God hears (Isa. 3:15; Amos 4:1; Jas.5:4)."

To read Dr. Moore's complete post please click here.

Mark Charles on Immigration Reform

Photo Credit: Fibonacci Blue

My friend, Mark Charles, offers an intriguing perspective on the topic of immigration reform. Mark, who is a member of the Navajo tribe, has some compelling insights on the role that Native Americans can (and should) play in the national dialogue on comprehensive immigration reform.

Here's what he has to say:

"One of the buzz phrases I have heard in many social justice circles regarding the issue of immigration reform is “Comprehensive and Just Immigration Reform”. But I have taken a slight twist on that idea and have used it to advocate for our Native American communities by pointing out that “immigration reform will be neither comprehensive nor just unless it includes the voices and perspectives of the Native American peoples.

Right now I am not even advocating for any specific policy or stance. Instead I am merely observing that the voices of Native American are largely absent from this conversation. And so I am trying to speak to two separate audiences.

To our Native American communities I want to communicate that this is an important and historic dialogue for our country and our land and that we, as indigenous peoples, can offer a unique and invaluable perspective. We are the original inhabitants of this land and for the first time in centuries we have an opportunity to shape the dialogue regarding who should and should not be allowed to be here. So I want to encourage our people to step up and take our place in this conversation.

And to non-Native communities I am trying to point out the irony of trying to reform a policy on immigration without the indigenous inhabitants of the land participating in the conversation. I have witnessed and am convicted that merely our presence at the table where immigration reform is being discussed fundamentally effects and alters the conversation. This is because our Native American community is a visual reminder of our country’s unjust history regarding immigration policy, and that is even before we begin speaking and offering our distinct perspectives on the land and our relationship to it. And so I want our country and our leaders to pause, and notice that the Native American community is not actively a part of this conversation and then to intentionally invite us to the table.

I do not believe that either community can resolve this issue alone. And even together we are not going to get it perfect. But both voices are necessary if we want this reform to be more comprehensive and more just than our current policy is now."

To learn about some of Mark's upcoming speaking opportunities and to read more of his thoughts, you can visit his blog here.

How Should Christians View Immigration Reform?

In the wake of the passing of Arizona's recent immigration reform law, there has been an increased dialogue about how the rest of the country should handle immigration reform. Predictably, many conservatives favor tougher laws while liberals argue for a "kinder, gentler" approach to handling visitors from other countries.

For those of us that are Christians, how are we to respond to this pressing issue? Does the Bible give us possible answers to how we can engage this all-important topic? Although not specifically speaking to how the United States should handle foreigners, the Old Testament does address how the nation of Israel was to treat aliens among them. Rabbi Brad Hirschfield shares his perspective:

"The Hebrew Bible mentions obligations to so-called strangers on numerous occasions. The message is pretty much always the same and perhaps best summed up by the words of Leviticus 19:33-34: "When a stranger dwells among you in your land, do not taunt him. The stranger who dwells with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt--I am the Lord, your God."
But who that stranger is that deserves such equality and even love is not necessarily a parallel to the millions of people who cross our borders illegally every year. Or perhaps it is. The stranger of the Hebrew Bible is better understood as a resident alien, a non-citizen who agrees to abide by the laws of the community into which he or she has come. To that extent then, many if not most, illegal aliens in this country, would not qualify. On the other hand, there is no mention in the Bible of barriers to entry into the Israelite nation, so perhaps they do.
What seems clear from Scripture (that itself a complex claim) is that loose borders or barriers to entry are only reasonable if accompanied by quite strict rules about participation once having arrived in the new community. That means that neither side in the current debate really understands what the Hebrew Bible intended.
Conservatives, generally obsessed with the "inappropriateness of rewarding illegal immigrants with any of the benefits of American life", miss the fact that how someone came to join the Israelites had no bearing on their status within the community once they arrived. There really was a sense of community as sanctuary - precisely what those taking a hard line on immigration oppose.
Liberals, however, are just as wrong when insisting that biblical hospitality knows no bounds and asks no questions - that it was an unqualified right with no attached obligations. In fact, like all ancient sanctuaries, there were many rules to be followed and norms to be upheld. In other words, entry was open to all, and once in they were treated as equals, but demands were made and failing to meet those demands was grounds for exclusion from the community.
While other biblical texts and traditions could be introduced into the debate on immigration, based on those verses bearing directly on the issue, the path forward is actually pretty clear: how one got here is largely irrelevant, though the obligations that must be assumed in order to stay are significant.
Biblical "immigration policy" was not about maintaining the purity of the community or fear of withholding the benefits of membership, but it was quite clear about the obligations that needed to be met to enjoy the privileges (not rights) of such membership. It would be quite a step forward to see people actually look to that model for guidance instead of simply thumping their Bibles to prove that which they already believe anyway."

Rabbi Hirschfield presents a balanced perspective on how the Bible addresses the treatment of strangers in the land of Israel and provides some principles that would be wise for us to apply. Since we live in a country primarily made up of immigrants and the descendants of immigrants, it is important for us to remember that many of our ancestors, too, came to this country looking for a better life for their children and grandchildren.

With the notable exceptions of First Nations people (who were already here when European immigrants came ashore) and Africans that were forcibly brought here in the slave trade, most of our forebearers came to the United States in search of a dream. An interesting point that often goes unmentioned in this debate is that had Native American tribes had the kind of strict immigration laws that the state of Arizona is advocating then many of us of European descent would not be here. Yeah, think about that for a second.

While I have no problem with border states seeking to protect their borders, I am concerned about how Arizona's laws (and other states that may follow suit) will treat United States citizens with brown skin. Let's be honest here. Arizona did not pass their law because they are worried about German or Australian immigrants. It was passed to keep Mexicans out of the state who had not followed the proper channels to get into the country. By requiring people to produce immigration papers to local police at any time they are deemed suspicious, I simply see no way that this law will be carried out apart from racial profiling.

These types of requirements are all too similar to how slaves had to have "passes" from their masters in the antebellum South or when black Africans had to carry paperwork with them anywhere they went under apartheid in South Africa. As a Christian, I cannot support any kind of law that encourages the harassment and/or imprisonment of any individual or family simply because of the color of their skin. Sadly, our country has a sordid history when it comes to how we've treated our citizens of color in matters of national security (e.g. see treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II).

I'm not sure what the most effective method is to ensure that all people desiring to live in the United States go through the appropriate channels to do so, but I do hope those hoping to live here are afforded the same opportunities that my ancestors were given. As Rabbi Hirschfield stated, the privilege to live here does come with certain obligations and there are needed steps to make sure immigrants meet those obligations. But I would hate to see American citizens treated unfairly simply because of their country of origin. That, they say, is simply un-American.

(h/t to Scot McKnight for the Hirschfield article)

More Immigrants Becoming U.S. Citizens After Military Service

An ongoing discussion in recent years has revolved around the role that the U.S. government should play in handling immigrants to the United States. In order to bolster thinning military ranks in the midst of ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Central Asia, the government is offering to fast-track immigrants who serve in the military so that they can become U.S. citizens.

The Orlando Sentinel states the following:

"National immigration statistics show that the number of military immigrants becoming citizens is not only the highest since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars started in 2002 and 2003, but is at a level not reached since 1970. About 9,000 have become citizens this year.

As the country relies on more immigrants to help win its wars — more than 100,000 are currently enlisted, making up about 8 percent of armed forces — it is making an effort to grant them citizenship.

"It's us trying to reach them," said Sharon Scheidhauer, spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in Orlando. "We set up a separate system: Their applications go to a separate place so they are handled very quickly, and they can get that honor."

The armed forces are targeting immigrants as early as boot camp and are offering assistance in filling out citizenship paperwork. Congress also passed a law waiving the $675 application fees, and former President George W. Bush had already invoked a wartime law waiving waiting periods before applying for those enlisted."

There are many hard-working immigrants from other countries that have defended the U.S. by serving in our military. The offer to speed up the process for these individuals who desire to become U.S. citizens seems like a reasonable and fair way of recognizing their service.

The America that President Obama is Inheriting

Our new president, Barack Obama, has inherited an America that he seems uniquely qualified to lead. His upbringing is now well-documented and his varied life experiences reflect the changing demographics of the United States. The face of America is literally changing and will continue to do so in the coming decades.

A recent Newsweek cover story focuses on the shifts within the United States and the trends that are now apparent.

On the significance of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

"The message seemed mixed. It was 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Sunday, Oct. 3, 1965, and President Lyndon B. Johnson had come to the foot of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor to sign the unsexily named Immigration and Nationality Act. It was a grand and sentimental stage for Johnson, who loved the grand and the sentimental. There he was, less than a year into a term he'd won in the greatest of landslides over Barry Goldwater, at the mythic gateway to America, Robert and Ted Kennedy in the audience, the eyes of the press fixed on him in the shadows of the nation's most fabled icon of freedom. "Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers," Johnson said, reaching for political poetry. "From a hundred different places or more they have poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide."
But the president was openly ambivalent, too. "The bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill," he said, defensively, almost as though to reassure white Americans that they had nothing to fear. "It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power." On reflection, the bill LBJ signed on that October day was one of the most significant of his momentous presidency, and the virtually forgotten legislation played a key role in creating the America that made this week's inauguration of Barack Obama possible."

On the division of Americans along ethnic lines:

"Yet the Obama victory is about more than Obama, and about more than black and white. In a democratic republic like ours (a product, in large part, of Madison's insight, Jackson's energy and Lincoln's genius), the president is both a maker and a mirror of the manners and morals of the electorate that has invested him with ultimate authority. We have not reached the promised land in which race and ethnicity no longer matter; history tells us that racism, tribalism and nativism will be always with us. The America of 2009, though, is not the America that Johnson felt coming into being the year before he spoke at the Statue of Liberty. After signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he told an aide he had just handed the South to the Republicans for a generation. (If you count a generation as roughly 21 years, he was off the mark, since the racially inspired backlash shaped politics for more than 40 years.)
For the moment—and it could be a very brief moment—the division of voters into us and them along racial and ethnic lines is at once more difficult and less effective. As the electorate changes, voters themselves are more likely to come from diverse backgrounds or live in a world in which diversity is the rule, not the exception. Not every part of the country is like the Bronx, where there is a 90 percent chance that any two people chosen at random will be of a different race or ethnicity. But there are now Hispanics, for instance—the country's fastest-growing population—living in practically every county in the country.
The roots of this new America—for it is quite new—can be traced to our long-running debate over immigration, a debate Johnson was trying to shape. Immigration boomed in the first decade of the 20th century, too. Waves came from Italy (1.9 million), Russia (1.5 million) and Austria-Hungary, which included Poland (2 million). All told, by 1910 there were about 13.5 million foreign-born people in the United States, according to the U.S. Census, and 87.4 percent of them were European."

On Americans' views of the changing demographics:

"The new reality is reflected in the NEWSWEEK Poll. Sixteen years ago, in the wake of the recession of 1991–92, anti-immigrant sentiment ran high, with 60 percent of Americans saying that they thought current immigration to the United States was a bad thing on the whole, and only 29 percent saying it was a good thing. Now the public is evenly divided, 44 percent to 44 percent. The percentage saying there are too many people coming to America from Africa has dropped from 47 percent in 1992 to 21 percent. Closer to home, public approval of interracial marriages (like the one between Obama's parents) has risen significantly in the past decade, from 54 percent in 1995 to 80 percent today.
The percentage of Americans who say they know a mixed-race couple has risen from 58 to 79 percent since 1995, and more than a third (34 percent) say they or a close family member have married or live with someone of another race or who has a very different racial, ethnic or religious background, including a quarter (24 percent) who say it is specifically an interracial marriage or live-in relationship."

Another article that may interest you from The Atlantic is entitled, "The End of White America" by Hua Hsu which has this provoking heading:

"The Election of Barack Obama is just the most startling manifestation of a larger trend: the gradual erosion of “whiteness” as the touchstone of what it means to be American. If the end of white America is a cultural and demographic inevitability, what will the new mainstream look like—and how will white Americans fit into it? What will it mean to be white when whiteness is no longer the norm? And will a post-white America be less racially divided—or more so?"

U.S. Urged to Apologize for 1930's Deportations

It has been said that those that neglect to learn their own history are doomed to repeat it. As the U.S. enters into national discussions regarding immigration issues, I think it is wise to remember our history regarding this issue so that we don't repeat it. Please read the following article by Wendy Koch, writer for the USA Today:

"His father and oldest sister were farming sugar beets in the fields of Hamilton, Mont., and his mother was cooking tortillas when 6-year-old Ignacio Piña saw plainclothes authorities burst into his home. "They came in with guns and told us to get out," recalls Piña, 81, a retired railroad worker in Bakersfield, Calif., of the 1931 raid. "They didn't let us take anything," not even a trunk that held birth certificates proving that he and his five siblings were U.S.-born citizens. The family was thrown into a jail for 10 days before being sent by train to Mexico. Piña says he spent 16 years of "pure hell" there before acquiring papers of his Utah birth and returning to the USA.

The deportation of Piña's family tells an almost-forgotten story of a 1930s anti-immigrant campaign. Tens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were pressured — through raids and job denials — to leave the USA during the Depression, according to a USA TODAY review of documents and interviews with historians and deportees. Many, mostly children, were U.S. citizens.


If their tales seem incredible, a newspaper analysis of the history textbooks usedmost in U.S. middle and high schools may explain why: Little has been written about the exodus, often called "the repatriation." That may soon change. As the U.S. Senate prepares to vote on bills that would either help illegal workers become legal residents or boost enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, an effort to address deportations that happened 70 years ago has gained traction:

• On Thursday, Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif., plans to introduce a bill in the U.S. House that calls for a commission to study the "deportation and coerced emigration" of U.S. citizens and legal residents. The panel would also recommend remedies that could include reparations. "An apology should be made," she says. Co-sponsor Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., says history may repeat itself. He says a new House bill that makes being an illegal immigrant a felony could prompt a "massive deportation of U.S. citizens," many of them U.S.-born children leaving with their parents. "We have safeguards to ensure people aren't deported who shouldn't be," says Jeff Lungren, GOP spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee, adding the new House bill retains those safeguards.

• In January, California became the first state to enact a bill that apologizes to Latino families for the 1930s civil rights violations. It declined to approve the sort of reparations the U.S. Congress provided in 1988 for Japanese-Americans interned during World War II. Democratic state Sen. Joe Dunn, a self-described "Irish white guy from Minnesota" who sponsored the state bill, is now pushing a measure to require students be taught about the 1930s emigration. He says as many as 2 million people of Mexican ancestry were coerced into leaving, 60% of them U.S. citizens.

• In October, a group of deportees and their relatives, known as los repatriados, will host a conference in Detroit on the topic. Organizer Helen Herrada, whose father was deported, has conducted 100 oral histories and produced a documentary. She says many sent to Mexico felt "humiliated" and didn't want to talk about it. "They just don't want it to happen again."

No precise figures exist on how many of those deported in the 1930s were illegal immigrants. Since many of those harassed left on their own, and their journeys were not officially recorded, there are also no exact figures on the total number who departed. At least 345,839 people went to Mexico from 1930 to 1935, with 1931 as the peak year, says a 1936 dispatch from the U.S. Consulate General in Mexico City. "It was a racial removal program," says Mae Ngai, an immigration history expert at the University of Chicago, adding people of Mexican ancestry were targeted. However, Americans in the 1930s were "really hurting," says Otis Graham, history professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara. One in four workers were unemployed and many families hungry. Deporting illegal residents was not an "outrageous idea," Graham says. "Don't lose the context."

In the early 1900s, Mexicans poured into the USA, welcomed by U.S. factory and farm owners who needed their labor. Until entry rules tightened in 1924, they simply paid a nickel to cross the border and get visas for legal residency. "The vast
majority were here legally, because it was so easy to enter legally," says Kevin Johnson, a law professor at the University of California, Davis. They spread out across the nation. They sharecropped in California, Texas and Louisiana, harvested sugar beets in Montana and Minnesota, laid railroad tracks in Kansas, mined coal in Utah and Oklahoma, packed meat in Chicago and assembled cars in Detroit.

By 1930, the U.S. Census counted 1.42 million people of Mexican ancestry, and 805,535 of them were U.S. born, up from 700,541 in 1920. Change came in 1929, as the stock market and U.S. economy crashed. That year, U.S. officials tightened visa rules, reducing legal immigration from Mexico to a trickle. They also discussed what to do with those already in the USA. "The government undertook a program that coerced people to leave," says Layla Razavi, policy analyst for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). "It was really a hostile environment." She says federal officials in the Hoover administration, like local-level officials, made no distinction between people of Mexican ancestry who were in the USA legally and those who weren't. "The document trail is shocking," says Dunn, whose staff spent two years researching the topic after he read the 1995 book Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s, by Francisco Balderrama and Raymond Rodriguez.

USA TODAY reviewed hundreds of pages of documents, some provided by Dunn and MALDEF and others found at the National Archives. They cite officials saying the deportations lawfully focused on illegal immigrants while the exodus of legal residents was voluntary. Yet they suggest people of Mexican ancestry faced varying forms of harassment and intimidation:

• Raids. Officials staged well-publicized raids in public places. On Feb. 26, 1931, immigration officials suddenly closed off La Placita, a square in Los Angeles, and questioned the roughly 400 people there about their legal status. The raids "created a climate of fear and anxiety" and prompted many Mexicans to leave voluntarily, says Balderrama, professor of Chicano studies and history at California State University, Los Angeles. In a June 1931 memo to superiors, Walter Carr, Los Angeles district director of immigration, said "thousands upon thousands of Mexican aliens" have been "literally scared out of Southern California." Some of them came from hospitals and needed medical care en route to Mexico, immigrant inspector Harry Yeager wrote in a November 1932 letter.

The Wickersham Commission, an 11-member panel created by President Hoover, said in a May 1931 report that immigration inspectors made "checkups" of boarding houses, restaurants and pool rooms without "warrants of any kind." Labor Secretary William Doak responded that the "checkups" occurred very rarely.

• Jobs withheld. Prodded by labor unions, states and private companies barred non-citizens from some jobs, Balderrama says. "We need their jobs for needy citizens," C.P. Visel of the Los Angeles Citizens Committee for Coordination of Unemployment Relief wrote in a 1931 telegram. In a March 1931 letter to Doak, Visel applauded U.S. officials for the "exodus of aliens deportable and otherwise who have been scared out of the community."

Emilia Castenada, 79, recalls coming home from school in 1935 in Los Angeles and hearing her father say he was being deported because "there was no work for Mexicans." She says her father, a stonemason, was a legal resident who owned property. A U.S. citizen who spoke little Spanish, she left the USA with her brother and father, who was never allowed back. "The jobs were given to the white Americans, not the Mexicans," says Carlos DeAnda Guerra, 77, a retired furniture upholsterer in Carpinteria, Calif. He says his parents entered the USA legally in 1917 but were denied jobs. He, his mother and five U.S.-born siblings were deported in 1931, while his father, who then went into hiding, stayed to pick oranges.

"The slogan has gone out over the city (Los Angeles) and is being adhered to — 'Employ no Mexican while a white man is unemployed,' " wrote George Clements, manager of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce's agriculture department, in a memo to his boss Arthur Arnoll. He said the Mexicans' legal status was not a factor: "It is a question of pigment, not a question of citizenship or right."

• Public aid threatened. County welfare offices threatened to withhold the public aid of many Mexican-Americans, Ngai says. Memos show they also offered to pay for trips to Mexico but sometimes failed to provide adequate food. An immigration inspector reported in a November 1932 memo that no provisions were made for 78 children on a train. Their only sustenance: a few ounces of milk daily. Most of those leaving were told they could return to the USA whenever they wanted, wrote Clements in an August 1931 letter. "This is a grave mistake, because it is not the truth." He reported each was given a card that made their return impossible, because it showed they were "county charities." Even those born in the USA, he wrote, wouldn't be able to return unless they had a birth certificate or similar proof.

• Forced departures. Some of the deportees who were moved by train or car had guards to ensure they left the USA and others were sent south on a "closed-body school bus" or "Mexican gun boat," memos show. "Those who tried to say 'no' ended up in the physical deportation category," Dunn says, adding they were taken in squad cars to train stations. Mexican-Americans recall other pressure tactics. Arthur Herrada, 81, a retired Ford engineer in Huron, Ohio, says his father, who was a legal U.S. resident, was threatened with deportation if he didn't join the U.S. Army. His father enlisted.

"It was an injustice that shouldn't have happened," says Jose Lopez, 79, a retired Ford worker in Detroit. He says his father came to the USA legally but couldn't find his papers in 1931 and was deported. To keep the family together, his mother took her six U.S.-born children to Mexico, where they often survived on one meal a day. Lopez welcomes a U.S. apology. So does Guerra, the retired upholsterer, whose voice still cracks with emotion when he talks about how deportation tore his family apart. "I'm very resentful. I don't trust the government at all," says Guerra, who later served in the U.S. military.

Piña says his entire family got typhoid fever in Mexico and his father, who had worked in Utah coal mines, died of black lung disease in 1935. "My mother was left destitute, with six of us, in a country we knew nothing about," he says. They lived in the slums of Mexico City, where his formal education ended in sixth grade. "We were misfits there. We weren't welcome." "The Depression was very bad here. You can imagine how hard it was in Mexico," says Piña, who proudly notes the advanced college degrees of each of his four U.S.-raised sons. "You can't put 16 years of pure hell out of your mind."

Let's not forget that for most Americans, our ancestors came to this country as immigrants as well. We should seek to afford the same privileges, opportunities and rights that were given to our families decades or centuries ago. As the Lord God said to the Israelites thousands of years ago,

"The foreigner living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." ~Leviticus 19:34