What do you think?
Rate this book
Just Immigration: American Policy in Christian Perspective
Few issues are as complex and controversial as immigration in the United States. The only thing anyone seems to agree on is that the system is broken. Mark Amstutz offers a succinct overview and assessment of current immigration policy and argues for an approach to the complex immigration debate that is solidly grounded in Christian political thought.
After analyzing key laws and institutions in the US immigration system, Amstutz examines how Catholics, evangelicals, and main-line Protestants have used Scripture to address social and political issues, including immigration. He critiques the ways in which many Christians have approached immigration reform and offers concrete suggestions on how Christian groups can offer a more credible political engagement with this urgent policy issue.
After analyzing key laws and institutions in the US immigration system, Amstutz examines how Catholics, evangelicals, and main-line Protestants have used Scripture to address social and political issues, including immigration. He critiques the ways in which many Christians have approached immigration reform and offers concrete suggestions on how Christian groups can offer a more credible political engagement with this urgent policy issue.
272 pages, Paperback
Published May 1, 2017
1 person is currently reading
101 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
October 24, 2017
Summary: A carefully researched work on American immigration policy, various Christian responses and why they generally fall short and the necessity of nuanced advocacy that recognizes the competing values of compassion, the rule of law, and the requirements of justice.
Immigration is perhaps one of the most contentious public policy issues facing the United States (and other nations today). While some want to “build the wall” others are announcing that they are “sanctuary cities” or at least “sanctuary churches.” Immigration policy is incredibly complicated as the competing demands of immigration for business, for study, for reuniting families, for representing diverse populations, for providing asylum and accommodating refugees, and dealing with the unauthorized entry of people, some for nefarious reasons, and others simply to work.
The popular perception is that our immigration system is “broken” and needs radical attention. Yet in terms of sheer numbers, the United States in recent years has admitted more immigrants than any other country (although some other countries have higher per capita immigration rates). Because of our oceans, we have been less involved in recent refugee resettlements than many European countries. All of this moves many Christians to insist we need a more just and compassionate immigration policy, one that is much more consistent with a biblical commitment to “welcome the stranger.”
Mark R. Amstutz takes a much more careful look at American immigration than most have, and challenges American Christians in this work that they need to do likewise. He begins by a careful and extensive description of how the American immigration system works and the various agencies involved with immigration. From this, Amstutz summarizes the strengths and shortfalls of the current system. For strengths, he sees a system that is relatively generous in admissions, that prioritizes family ties, that seeks to be inclusive in its use of diversity visas, is committed to due process protections, and shows special concerns for the persecuted and abused. At the same time, we provide inadequate numbers of work visas for our work force requirements, chain migration concentrates immigration numbers on family-based visas, while at the same times delaying family reunifications, sometimes up to twenty years, we have inadequate employment verification processes, inadequate tracking procedures for nonimmigrant visitors, weak border security and problems in our judicial processes. The biggest challenge is how we deal with unauthorized (or illegal) immigration, which is where concerns for compassion bump up with real questions about the undermining of the rule of law when laws are not enforced, while many unauthorized immigrants (11 million or so) “live in the shadows.”
Amstutz sees two competing theories concerning immigration that undergird the differences people have. One is a cosmopolitan approach that sees us all as one people sharing the planet and minimizes the nation-state. The other is the communitarian that recognizes the world as a series of nation-states with the right to regulate borders. This ultimately leads to conflicting priorities that acknowledge that any person should have the right to emigrate at will, but that no one has a right to be admitted to another country.
After overviewing the theoretical constructs brought to this discussion outside the church, he turns to the thinking of Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, with evangelical, and mainline Protestant bodies. In general, what Amstutz found was some biblical theology around immigration, and then public policy advocacy that did not particularly connect to their biblical convictions. In general, very few statements provided any extended moral analysis of American immigration policy, and that while most came down heavily to advocate compassion for immigrants and refugees, and amnesty for unauthorized immigrants and their children. Few dealt with the issues around law enforcement and the rule of law in anything more than passing references. Furthermore, most were directed to the political process, and in many cases little attention was given to congregational education. Amstutz acknowledges that there is often a wide divide between leaders and their congregational base.
Amstutz holds up as a model of the kind of statement that can be effective, he points to the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops statement on nuclear arms during the 1980’s. This statement took several years to draft, involved careful biblical and theological work, and careful moral analysis based on extensive research on the nuclear arms and strategy. An eye was given both to catechesis in the church and public advocacy and because of this careful work, the document did shape public discourse on nuclear arms and may have contributed to nuclear disarmament.
This is the best book I’ve found on this topic for several reasons. One is that it provides good, detailed information on how our immigration system works, in its strengths and weaknesses. Also, this is a good book for those who want to take a hard look at what the Bible says about this issue who have concerns both about compassion and about justice, including the rule of law. It is valuable in assessing the various statements that have been made by church bodies about immigration. Amstutz is thoughtful about what can realistically be accomplished, in talking about “proximate justice.” It is a book that can equally challenge those on the compassion side and those on the law and order side of the discussion, and may provide a meeting place for those who want to work toward proximate solutions that recognize both concerns.
Perhaps the most challenging message of this book is that we often have responded in public discussions on this issue out of poorly formed biblical frameworks and moral sentiments–that we have not done the hard intellectual work to make a constructive contribution at a policy level, or to provide teaching that doesn’t simply feel like the propaganda of the left or the right. We often simply have wanted to do something, to advocate for something, to resist something. Might it be that our “ready, fire, aim” approach to these things accounts for the counterproductive character of the conversation? Could it be that the careful work of study, moral analysis, and then thoughtful advocacy and service is what’s called for?
____________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
Immigration is perhaps one of the most contentious public policy issues facing the United States (and other nations today). While some want to “build the wall” others are announcing that they are “sanctuary cities” or at least “sanctuary churches.” Immigration policy is incredibly complicated as the competing demands of immigration for business, for study, for reuniting families, for representing diverse populations, for providing asylum and accommodating refugees, and dealing with the unauthorized entry of people, some for nefarious reasons, and others simply to work.
The popular perception is that our immigration system is “broken” and needs radical attention. Yet in terms of sheer numbers, the United States in recent years has admitted more immigrants than any other country (although some other countries have higher per capita immigration rates). Because of our oceans, we have been less involved in recent refugee resettlements than many European countries. All of this moves many Christians to insist we need a more just and compassionate immigration policy, one that is much more consistent with a biblical commitment to “welcome the stranger.”
Mark R. Amstutz takes a much more careful look at American immigration than most have, and challenges American Christians in this work that they need to do likewise. He begins by a careful and extensive description of how the American immigration system works and the various agencies involved with immigration. From this, Amstutz summarizes the strengths and shortfalls of the current system. For strengths, he sees a system that is relatively generous in admissions, that prioritizes family ties, that seeks to be inclusive in its use of diversity visas, is committed to due process protections, and shows special concerns for the persecuted and abused. At the same time, we provide inadequate numbers of work visas for our work force requirements, chain migration concentrates immigration numbers on family-based visas, while at the same times delaying family reunifications, sometimes up to twenty years, we have inadequate employment verification processes, inadequate tracking procedures for nonimmigrant visitors, weak border security and problems in our judicial processes. The biggest challenge is how we deal with unauthorized (or illegal) immigration, which is where concerns for compassion bump up with real questions about the undermining of the rule of law when laws are not enforced, while many unauthorized immigrants (11 million or so) “live in the shadows.”
Amstutz sees two competing theories concerning immigration that undergird the differences people have. One is a cosmopolitan approach that sees us all as one people sharing the planet and minimizes the nation-state. The other is the communitarian that recognizes the world as a series of nation-states with the right to regulate borders. This ultimately leads to conflicting priorities that acknowledge that any person should have the right to emigrate at will, but that no one has a right to be admitted to another country.
After overviewing the theoretical constructs brought to this discussion outside the church, he turns to the thinking of Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, with evangelical, and mainline Protestant bodies. In general, what Amstutz found was some biblical theology around immigration, and then public policy advocacy that did not particularly connect to their biblical convictions. In general, very few statements provided any extended moral analysis of American immigration policy, and that while most came down heavily to advocate compassion for immigrants and refugees, and amnesty for unauthorized immigrants and their children. Few dealt with the issues around law enforcement and the rule of law in anything more than passing references. Furthermore, most were directed to the political process, and in many cases little attention was given to congregational education. Amstutz acknowledges that there is often a wide divide between leaders and their congregational base.
Amstutz holds up as a model of the kind of statement that can be effective, he points to the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops statement on nuclear arms during the 1980’s. This statement took several years to draft, involved careful biblical and theological work, and careful moral analysis based on extensive research on the nuclear arms and strategy. An eye was given both to catechesis in the church and public advocacy and because of this careful work, the document did shape public discourse on nuclear arms and may have contributed to nuclear disarmament.
This is the best book I’ve found on this topic for several reasons. One is that it provides good, detailed information on how our immigration system works, in its strengths and weaknesses. Also, this is a good book for those who want to take a hard look at what the Bible says about this issue who have concerns both about compassion and about justice, including the rule of law. It is valuable in assessing the various statements that have been made by church bodies about immigration. Amstutz is thoughtful about what can realistically be accomplished, in talking about “proximate justice.” It is a book that can equally challenge those on the compassion side and those on the law and order side of the discussion, and may provide a meeting place for those who want to work toward proximate solutions that recognize both concerns.
Perhaps the most challenging message of this book is that we often have responded in public discussions on this issue out of poorly formed biblical frameworks and moral sentiments–that we have not done the hard intellectual work to make a constructive contribution at a policy level, or to provide teaching that doesn’t simply feel like the propaganda of the left or the right. We often simply have wanted to do something, to advocate for something, to resist something. Might it be that our “ready, fire, aim” approach to these things accounts for the counterproductive character of the conversation? Could it be that the careful work of study, moral analysis, and then thoughtful advocacy and service is what’s called for?
____________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
January 19, 2018
Mark Amstutz addresses the issue of how a Christian’s faith should impact their approach to immigration reform with a plodding academic approach. I don’t necessarily mind meticulously dissecting a topic, but a lot of this book felt redundant with little positive payoff at the end.
For the first hundred pages or so the author describes and evaluates the state of US immigration policy and practice. This was probably the most informative part of the book as it provides a good look at the complexity of the issues and viewpoints involved.
The rest of the book describes and evaluates (i.e. heavily criticizes) the approach of various Christian denominations to the issue of immigration reform. I can save you about 130 pages of reading with this summary of the author’s main points:
- The church should stick to its sphere of showing love as individuals and the government should stick to its sphere of dispensing justice
- Churches should focus on teaching people a moral framework of general Scriptural principles that can be used to evaluate the moral aspects of immigration law rather than lobbying for specific policy changes which should be left up to those who actually understand political science.
- The main Scriptural principles that apply to issues of immigration are the dignity of all human beings, compassion for the stranger, and obedience to legitimate authority (with the first two frequently overemphasized to the neglect of the third).
On pages 230-232 the author gives us a bare-bones summary of his take on various moral/ethical issues discussed throughout the book…if he had focused more on this than on showing how everyone else got it wrong I think this would have been a much more profitable book.
For the first hundred pages or so the author describes and evaluates the state of US immigration policy and practice. This was probably the most informative part of the book as it provides a good look at the complexity of the issues and viewpoints involved.
The rest of the book describes and evaluates (i.e. heavily criticizes) the approach of various Christian denominations to the issue of immigration reform. I can save you about 130 pages of reading with this summary of the author’s main points:
- The church should stick to its sphere of showing love as individuals and the government should stick to its sphere of dispensing justice
- Churches should focus on teaching people a moral framework of general Scriptural principles that can be used to evaluate the moral aspects of immigration law rather than lobbying for specific policy changes which should be left up to those who actually understand political science.
- The main Scriptural principles that apply to issues of immigration are the dignity of all human beings, compassion for the stranger, and obedience to legitimate authority (with the first two frequently overemphasized to the neglect of the third).
On pages 230-232 the author gives us a bare-bones summary of his take on various moral/ethical issues discussed throughout the book…if he had focused more on this than on showing how everyone else got it wrong I think this would have been a much more profitable book.
February 2, 2019
I found his book to be profoundly disappointing. That a book is technical, detailed, and well sourced does not mean that it contributes meaningfully to the conversation.
The author essentially argues that immigration policy in America is too complex for “moralizing” principles often put forth by various sectors of the Christian faith. He suggest that Christians have over-emphasized principles of compassion and inclusion to the exclusion of "justice" and "rule of law". This may be true, but you'd be hard pressed to make a strong argument that Jesus encourages the enforcement of laws to the detriment of people in need. Amstutz seems to imply that these ideas are more or less equal. I agree that justice and "rule of law" are valuable and important, but in biblical terms, they are in no way equal to the principles of care for the poor and welcoming of strangers.
Additionally, I think he seriously over-simplifies a lot of Christian teaching. He employs some straw men, and believes he proves them inadequate. However, I don’t feel he deals adequately with the actual arguments put forth (some of which are reasonably robust).
In my opinion, the most jarring example of this was in his section about Evangelicals. With regard to an Evangelical tradition seeking to “forgive” those who enter the country illegally, he cites a strong argument from Molly Worthen, stating “If sin is conceived of chiefly as individual wrongdoing, then one is likely to emphasize personal culpability for unlawful entry. If, on the other hand, unlawful behavior is viewed as a result of a flawed, unjust immigration system, then guilt shifts from the individual to the impersonal structures and institutions.”
His response? “Evangelicals emphasize that sin is centered in the desires and actions of individuals, not the injustices of political and economic structures. Accordingly, God’s grace is available not to collectives but to persons who are penitent and willing to acknowledge their sin.”
I no longer consider myself an Evangelical, so simply citing what Evangelical theology emphasizes gets nowhere with me. He doesn’t actually deal with the argument itself. Secondly, I question the logic in the first place. Does he really think that Evangelicals interpret the Minor Prophets through a lens of personal actions of individuals? Of course not! The Minor Prophets are almost exclusively about unjust structures.
And while Evangelicals do often see sin in terms of individual decisions and attitudes, that doesn’t mean they see sin exclusively that way. In Romans, Paul speaks about sin primarily as an entity exercising power over humanity, and which humans need rescuing from. I don’t know of any Evangelicals would would be particularly threatened by this understanding. It doesn’t undermine the idea of individual sin. It merely shows that there are multiple ways of talking about and defining sin.
And so, suggesting that “God’s grace” isn’t available to collectives doesn’t address the argument at all. The question being asked is whether immigration laws are just, and whether breaking them is a “sin” if the law being broken is dehumanizing and exploitative.
This, of course, is a debate worth having. The author sidesteps it with his two dismissive sentences about how Evangelicals aren’t being theologically consistent. That is a profoundly weak argument. Despite the fact that he is incredibly well read, and seems to have a strong handle on the complexities of American immigration law, both historically and present, I found much of his book to be fairly unsophisticated when it came to his theological understanding of the arguments he interacted with.
I agree with the author that immigration is a complex issue, and that simple idealistic “moralizing” by church leaders doesn’t get us where we need to go. But for issues like family separation, (I know this book was published before such topics came to a head), the "proximate justice" argument simply doesn't hold up. Much of the current enforcement of immigration law is clearly right/wrong, black/white, moral/immoral, and judgments must be made. Arguing that the overall subject is too complex strikes me as cowardly when facing the injustice that we see surrounding the issue today.
The author essentially argues that immigration policy in America is too complex for “moralizing” principles often put forth by various sectors of the Christian faith. He suggest that Christians have over-emphasized principles of compassion and inclusion to the exclusion of "justice" and "rule of law". This may be true, but you'd be hard pressed to make a strong argument that Jesus encourages the enforcement of laws to the detriment of people in need. Amstutz seems to imply that these ideas are more or less equal. I agree that justice and "rule of law" are valuable and important, but in biblical terms, they are in no way equal to the principles of care for the poor and welcoming of strangers.
Additionally, I think he seriously over-simplifies a lot of Christian teaching. He employs some straw men, and believes he proves them inadequate. However, I don’t feel he deals adequately with the actual arguments put forth (some of which are reasonably robust).
In my opinion, the most jarring example of this was in his section about Evangelicals. With regard to an Evangelical tradition seeking to “forgive” those who enter the country illegally, he cites a strong argument from Molly Worthen, stating “If sin is conceived of chiefly as individual wrongdoing, then one is likely to emphasize personal culpability for unlawful entry. If, on the other hand, unlawful behavior is viewed as a result of a flawed, unjust immigration system, then guilt shifts from the individual to the impersonal structures and institutions.”
His response? “Evangelicals emphasize that sin is centered in the desires and actions of individuals, not the injustices of political and economic structures. Accordingly, God’s grace is available not to collectives but to persons who are penitent and willing to acknowledge their sin.”
I no longer consider myself an Evangelical, so simply citing what Evangelical theology emphasizes gets nowhere with me. He doesn’t actually deal with the argument itself. Secondly, I question the logic in the first place. Does he really think that Evangelicals interpret the Minor Prophets through a lens of personal actions of individuals? Of course not! The Minor Prophets are almost exclusively about unjust structures.
And while Evangelicals do often see sin in terms of individual decisions and attitudes, that doesn’t mean they see sin exclusively that way. In Romans, Paul speaks about sin primarily as an entity exercising power over humanity, and which humans need rescuing from. I don’t know of any Evangelicals would would be particularly threatened by this understanding. It doesn’t undermine the idea of individual sin. It merely shows that there are multiple ways of talking about and defining sin.
And so, suggesting that “God’s grace” isn’t available to collectives doesn’t address the argument at all. The question being asked is whether immigration laws are just, and whether breaking them is a “sin” if the law being broken is dehumanizing and exploitative.
This, of course, is a debate worth having. The author sidesteps it with his two dismissive sentences about how Evangelicals aren’t being theologically consistent. That is a profoundly weak argument. Despite the fact that he is incredibly well read, and seems to have a strong handle on the complexities of American immigration law, both historically and present, I found much of his book to be fairly unsophisticated when it came to his theological understanding of the arguments he interacted with.
I agree with the author that immigration is a complex issue, and that simple idealistic “moralizing” by church leaders doesn’t get us where we need to go. But for issues like family separation, (I know this book was published before such topics came to a head), the "proximate justice" argument simply doesn't hold up. Much of the current enforcement of immigration law is clearly right/wrong, black/white, moral/immoral, and judgments must be made. Arguing that the overall subject is too complex strikes me as cowardly when facing the injustice that we see surrounding the issue today.
April 19, 2019
In this important and timely book, political science professor Mark R. Amstutz provides detailed overviews of the history of immigration in the US, the current rules and practice, and alternative theories of international migration. All this takes up the first half of the book and may be more than you want to know; but it is essential background for understanding the magnitude and complexity of the problem and the chaos that would result if the US government simply opened its borders.
Amstutz then turns to the Christian perspective, citing biblical principles relevant to migration, primarily the precepts of compassion (love) and obedience (rule of law). In subsequent chapters he provides fairly detailed reviews and analyses of Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Mainline and other Protestant views on immigration and their denominational statements calling for policy reform. Churches tend toward a cosmopolitan view of humanity that supersedes communitarian interests, he notes, but the right of nation-states to control their borders is the present reality under which we operate.
Amstutz points out shortcomings in nearly all the church documents he analyzes. After alluding to both compassion and obedience as biblical precepts, they tend to downplay the latter and to propose simplistic solutions. One exception he cites is a study by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod that led to a report titled “Immigrants Among Us: A Lutheran Framework for Addressing Immigrtion Issues" (IAU). “Owing to the care and depth with which this study was undertaken,” writes Amstutz, “it stands as a model of how to assess a complex public-policy concern from a biblical perspective.” He proceeds to devote several pages to the IAU. “While the report does not offer policy recommendations on how to advance a just immigration system,” he observes, “it does provide something more important and more consistent with the church’s primary vocation, namely, moral and theological education. By avoiding simplistic platitudes about migration, the report highlights the different responsibilities assigned to the church and the state.”
Amstutz's well-organized and -documented factual content and his thoughtful analysis are commendable, as is his useful 10-page bibliography. However, he might have appealed to a wider audience if he had been more concise. While repetition can serve to reinforce, it can also make the eyes glaze over. I noted several sentences repeated verbatim a few pages apart, and a full 12 lines from page 91 are repeated verbatim on page 105. (I was still paying close attention!)
Nevertheless, Just Immigration is a valuable resource for anyone seeking to understand the challenges involved in immigration reform, and especially for churches preparing to issue public statements. “Christians can contribute to the task of helping develop … policies that advance ‘proximate justice,’ Amstutz concludes. “But rather than telling public officials what policies to pursue, the task of the church is to help structure the ethical analysis of international migration.”
Amstutz then turns to the Christian perspective, citing biblical principles relevant to migration, primarily the precepts of compassion (love) and obedience (rule of law). In subsequent chapters he provides fairly detailed reviews and analyses of Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Mainline and other Protestant views on immigration and their denominational statements calling for policy reform. Churches tend toward a cosmopolitan view of humanity that supersedes communitarian interests, he notes, but the right of nation-states to control their borders is the present reality under which we operate.
Amstutz points out shortcomings in nearly all the church documents he analyzes. After alluding to both compassion and obedience as biblical precepts, they tend to downplay the latter and to propose simplistic solutions. One exception he cites is a study by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod that led to a report titled “Immigrants Among Us: A Lutheran Framework for Addressing Immigrtion Issues" (IAU). “Owing to the care and depth with which this study was undertaken,” writes Amstutz, “it stands as a model of how to assess a complex public-policy concern from a biblical perspective.” He proceeds to devote several pages to the IAU. “While the report does not offer policy recommendations on how to advance a just immigration system,” he observes, “it does provide something more important and more consistent with the church’s primary vocation, namely, moral and theological education. By avoiding simplistic platitudes about migration, the report highlights the different responsibilities assigned to the church and the state.”
Amstutz's well-organized and -documented factual content and his thoughtful analysis are commendable, as is his useful 10-page bibliography. However, he might have appealed to a wider audience if he had been more concise. While repetition can serve to reinforce, it can also make the eyes glaze over. I noted several sentences repeated verbatim a few pages apart, and a full 12 lines from page 91 are repeated verbatim on page 105. (I was still paying close attention!)
Nevertheless, Just Immigration is a valuable resource for anyone seeking to understand the challenges involved in immigration reform, and especially for churches preparing to issue public statements. “Christians can contribute to the task of helping develop … policies that advance ‘proximate justice,’ Amstutz concludes. “But rather than telling public officials what policies to pursue, the task of the church is to help structure the ethical analysis of international migration.”
July 14, 2021
This review was originally published in the International Journal of Public Theology, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2018): 135-137.
The rise of public advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform, particularly by Christian leaders citing biblical values, serves as the impetus for Mark Amstutz’s Just Immigration: American Policy in Christian Perspective. He sets himself to describe and assess both the US immigration system and Christian perspectives on it. An additional aim “is to examine and critique the churches’ immigration work in order to provide recommendations for strengthening their moral contribution to the policy debate” (14).
The first three chapters explore the US immigration system. Chapter One sketches an overview of the topic and its high stakes. Chapter Two explicates immigration law in its recent development, structural dimensions across government agencies, and contemporary challenges of enforcement. Chapter Three evaluates the system’s practical strengths and weaknesses. Amstutz claims, “The US immigration system represents a formidable political achievement” (52) due to its negotiation of conflicting interests, prioritization of family (re)unification, due-process protections, and generous inclusion of diverse ethnicities. He also discusses its limits, both those “rooted in the laws and policies themselves [and those that] stem from ineffective implementation” (58-9), especially regarding unauthorized migration.
Chapter Four shifts to an exposition of alternative paradigms of international relations (cosmopolitanism and communitarianism)*1 and addresses their application to migration ethics. Although he acknowledges the resonance between cosmopolitan ideals and Christianity’s valuation of human dignity and equality (97), Amstutz opts for the communitarian framework. He considers it more deeply grounded in the realities of human sin and a decentralized global order, replete with potential to “help foster and sustain communal solidarity and avoid the limitations of utopian cosmopolitanism” (101). Chapter Five focuses on the Bible’s use in public discourse about immigration. Amstutz recognizes the role of biblical principles for shaping Christian perspectives, but warns against relating these to specific policy recommendations.
The next three chapters give further detail about how Roman Catholics (Chapter 6), Evangelicals (Chapter 7), and Mainline Protestants (Chapter 8) have made precisely such policy claims in their public advocacy about immigration. In each chapter, Amstutz discusses the respective tradition’s contributions to understanding immigration, engages in detailed exegesis of representative documents, and thoroughly critiques their policy prescriptions as suffering from an incomplete framework due to insufficient attention to political realities.*2
Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes Amstutz’s findings on churches’ participation in the immigration debate, before offering his own fundamental principles and prescriptions. Amstutz’s criticism is unstinting: “Christian denominations have been excessively engaged in the particularities of immigration reform and have neglected their responsibilities to teach theological political ethics…. Their advocacy has been informed by a one-sided ethical assessment that has given precedence to compassion and inclusion and has de-emphasized justice and the rule of law” (216). He closes with a call for Christians to “contribute to the task of helping develop and implement immigration policies that advance ‘proximate justice’”*3 (239), though ethical teaching, not political advocacy.
Perhaps the greatest strength of Just Immigration lies in its political scientific accessibility, which demystifies the immigration system, clarifies the relationships between its interlocking features, and unravels its constitutive complexities and contradictions. Chapter Two is a highlight in this regard, commending itself to those less familiar with the topic. Likewise, the principles that Amstutz proposes in Chapter 9 merit reflection across the political spectrum.
Unfortunately, Just Immigration also suffers from serious shortcomings. Amstutz’s heavy emphasis on the nation-state obscures many of globalization’s transformations that bear significantly on human migration, while also demonstrating historical reductionism in its valorization of the rule of law.*4 Additionally, Amstutz displays a penchant for unnecessary antithesis*5 and inadequate representation of those with whom he disagrees.*6 Furthermore, his attempts at ethical integration abound in repeated assertions and abstract proof-texting.*7
These limitations are regrettable because Amstutz raises several valuable concerns, yet he incorporates too narrow a lens to yield sufficiently constructive solutions. Ironically, this critique is similar to that which he levels at Christian leaders’ teachings, that they are “ethically compelling but politically incomplete” (179). Just Immigration generates a mirror image –compelling from a political science perspective, but incomplete for Christian ethics and public theology.
Footnotes:
*1 Amstutz describes the communitarianism view as “the international community is a society of states because interstate relations are structured not only by power but also by morality and law”, whereas cosmopolitanism “represents the ideal of a just world community where individuals are the primary focus of political action” (81).
*2 The exception is the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod’s “Immigrants among Us” report, which he broadly affirms.
*3 This is Reinhold Niebuhr’s term, related to government “weighing the competing merits of individuals and groups while taking into account the self-interest of all human action” (218).
*4 This is partly due to his reliance on Samuel Huntington’s dubious historiography – framing the early European immigrants who destroyed Native American societies as settlers, rather than immigrants (8-9), and overemphasizing the founding contributions of Anglo-Protestantism for American culture (191-2). Amstutz also ignores the relevance of the Mexican-American War’s coercive border changes for contemporary ethics of border control.
*5 Examples include: political goals vs. transcendent mission (14), policy advocacy vs. moral teaching (153), and the rule of law vs. human dignity and compassion (180). Negotiating these pairs can involve tension, but Amstutz appears to operate with a zero-sum mindset that assumes conflict rather than imagining convergence. This may stem from his allegedly Augustinian presuppositions (215). By associating the City of God with the church and the City of Man with the state (194), he ironically plays into the hands of those who would privatize Christian theology.
*6 Amstutz’s critiques of cosmopolitanism bear little resemblance to the sophisticated recent accounts by Kwame Anthony Appiah (Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, New York: W.W. Norton, 2007) and Hak Joon Lee (The Great World House: Martin Luther King, Jr., and Global Ethics, Cleveland, Pilgrim Press, 2011).
*7 For instance, Amstutz either quotes or alludes to Matthew 22:21 (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and render to God the things that are God’s”) seven times, but he frames this verse as a matter of competing obligations rather than offering a careful theological interpretation.
The rise of public advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform, particularly by Christian leaders citing biblical values, serves as the impetus for Mark Amstutz’s Just Immigration: American Policy in Christian Perspective. He sets himself to describe and assess both the US immigration system and Christian perspectives on it. An additional aim “is to examine and critique the churches’ immigration work in order to provide recommendations for strengthening their moral contribution to the policy debate” (14).
The first three chapters explore the US immigration system. Chapter One sketches an overview of the topic and its high stakes. Chapter Two explicates immigration law in its recent development, structural dimensions across government agencies, and contemporary challenges of enforcement. Chapter Three evaluates the system’s practical strengths and weaknesses. Amstutz claims, “The US immigration system represents a formidable political achievement” (52) due to its negotiation of conflicting interests, prioritization of family (re)unification, due-process protections, and generous inclusion of diverse ethnicities. He also discusses its limits, both those “rooted in the laws and policies themselves [and those that] stem from ineffective implementation” (58-9), especially regarding unauthorized migration.
Chapter Four shifts to an exposition of alternative paradigms of international relations (cosmopolitanism and communitarianism)*1 and addresses their application to migration ethics. Although he acknowledges the resonance between cosmopolitan ideals and Christianity’s valuation of human dignity and equality (97), Amstutz opts for the communitarian framework. He considers it more deeply grounded in the realities of human sin and a decentralized global order, replete with potential to “help foster and sustain communal solidarity and avoid the limitations of utopian cosmopolitanism” (101). Chapter Five focuses on the Bible’s use in public discourse about immigration. Amstutz recognizes the role of biblical principles for shaping Christian perspectives, but warns against relating these to specific policy recommendations.
The next three chapters give further detail about how Roman Catholics (Chapter 6), Evangelicals (Chapter 7), and Mainline Protestants (Chapter 8) have made precisely such policy claims in their public advocacy about immigration. In each chapter, Amstutz discusses the respective tradition’s contributions to understanding immigration, engages in detailed exegesis of representative documents, and thoroughly critiques their policy prescriptions as suffering from an incomplete framework due to insufficient attention to political realities.*2
Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes Amstutz’s findings on churches’ participation in the immigration debate, before offering his own fundamental principles and prescriptions. Amstutz’s criticism is unstinting: “Christian denominations have been excessively engaged in the particularities of immigration reform and have neglected their responsibilities to teach theological political ethics…. Their advocacy has been informed by a one-sided ethical assessment that has given precedence to compassion and inclusion and has de-emphasized justice and the rule of law” (216). He closes with a call for Christians to “contribute to the task of helping develop and implement immigration policies that advance ‘proximate justice’”*3 (239), though ethical teaching, not political advocacy.
Perhaps the greatest strength of Just Immigration lies in its political scientific accessibility, which demystifies the immigration system, clarifies the relationships between its interlocking features, and unravels its constitutive complexities and contradictions. Chapter Two is a highlight in this regard, commending itself to those less familiar with the topic. Likewise, the principles that Amstutz proposes in Chapter 9 merit reflection across the political spectrum.
Unfortunately, Just Immigration also suffers from serious shortcomings. Amstutz’s heavy emphasis on the nation-state obscures many of globalization’s transformations that bear significantly on human migration, while also demonstrating historical reductionism in its valorization of the rule of law.*4 Additionally, Amstutz displays a penchant for unnecessary antithesis*5 and inadequate representation of those with whom he disagrees.*6 Furthermore, his attempts at ethical integration abound in repeated assertions and abstract proof-texting.*7
These limitations are regrettable because Amstutz raises several valuable concerns, yet he incorporates too narrow a lens to yield sufficiently constructive solutions. Ironically, this critique is similar to that which he levels at Christian leaders’ teachings, that they are “ethically compelling but politically incomplete” (179). Just Immigration generates a mirror image –compelling from a political science perspective, but incomplete for Christian ethics and public theology.
Footnotes:
*1 Amstutz describes the communitarianism view as “the international community is a society of states because interstate relations are structured not only by power but also by morality and law”, whereas cosmopolitanism “represents the ideal of a just world community where individuals are the primary focus of political action” (81).
*2 The exception is the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod’s “Immigrants among Us” report, which he broadly affirms.
*3 This is Reinhold Niebuhr’s term, related to government “weighing the competing merits of individuals and groups while taking into account the self-interest of all human action” (218).
*4 This is partly due to his reliance on Samuel Huntington’s dubious historiography – framing the early European immigrants who destroyed Native American societies as settlers, rather than immigrants (8-9), and overemphasizing the founding contributions of Anglo-Protestantism for American culture (191-2). Amstutz also ignores the relevance of the Mexican-American War’s coercive border changes for contemporary ethics of border control.
*5 Examples include: political goals vs. transcendent mission (14), policy advocacy vs. moral teaching (153), and the rule of law vs. human dignity and compassion (180). Negotiating these pairs can involve tension, but Amstutz appears to operate with a zero-sum mindset that assumes conflict rather than imagining convergence. This may stem from his allegedly Augustinian presuppositions (215). By associating the City of God with the church and the City of Man with the state (194), he ironically plays into the hands of those who would privatize Christian theology.
*6 Amstutz’s critiques of cosmopolitanism bear little resemblance to the sophisticated recent accounts by Kwame Anthony Appiah (Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, New York: W.W. Norton, 2007) and Hak Joon Lee (The Great World House: Martin Luther King, Jr., and Global Ethics, Cleveland, Pilgrim Press, 2011).
*7 For instance, Amstutz either quotes or alludes to Matthew 22:21 (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and render to God the things that are God’s”) seven times, but he frames this verse as a matter of competing obligations rather than offering a careful theological interpretation.
September 29, 2017
this is a mix between a 3.5 and a 4. Some very good chapters laying out current laws and how they stand, tensions in immigration law, and how they play out in practice. Additionally, if someone wants to make headway on the issue of immigration, this book lays out the issues someone (or policy) should address. Immigration reform will spark emotions and thoughts from people of all political persuasions, and it is easy to see our own personal "oughts" and moral principles while sometimes missing the concerns of others. Successful policy and persuasion will most likely addressing our own concerns, as well as the valid ones not on the forefront of our minds. This is the book's greatest contribution.
My complaint is minor yet significant. Since Dr. Amstutz writes for a more academic audience, I think he should've evaluated some of his sources with greater scrutiny. Dr. Amstutz uses Paul Collier's "Exodus" multiple times, a book widely scrutinized as not living up to even Dr. Collier's standards. While this does not mean Collier's work shouldn't be used in this case, I would've liked to see a footnote qualifying or defending some of the main critiques. This may seem unnecessary or overkill, yet it strengthens an overall argument to not only describe and reference keys sources that you lean on, but evaluate and qualify them too. This probably would've left Dr. Amstutz's argument unchanged and extended the page count and footnote section a bit, but I think it would've been worth it.
My complaint is minor yet significant. Since Dr. Amstutz writes for a more academic audience, I think he should've evaluated some of his sources with greater scrutiny. Dr. Amstutz uses Paul Collier's "Exodus" multiple times, a book widely scrutinized as not living up to even Dr. Collier's standards. While this does not mean Collier's work shouldn't be used in this case, I would've liked to see a footnote qualifying or defending some of the main critiques. This may seem unnecessary or overkill, yet it strengthens an overall argument to not only describe and reference keys sources that you lean on, but evaluate and qualify them too. This probably would've left Dr. Amstutz's argument unchanged and extended the page count and footnote section a bit, but I think it would've been worth it.
June 17, 2018
Amstutz states at the outset that he rejects the broad religious appeals to “cosmopolitanism” on the grounds that this is not the current world system. He then describes the complexity of the immigration system, and characterizes the majority of Christian responses to be naive and inadequate as they espouse the cosmopolitan theory he rejected at the outset. These responses, which he labels “advocacy,” can’t work because they aren’t realistic. He favors the approach of education in theological principles which can then inform Christians who find themselves in positions where they can influence policy.
The problem is that since he has already rejected the cosmopolitan worldview, he does not allow that advocacy for such a worldview could be the churches’ current education ministry.
Long stretches of the book are dedicated to telling churches to stay out of politics, and Amstutz relies upon the common misreading of “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” This has been assumed to be Jesus establishing separation of church and state, a concept that arose only after 1648. For Amstutz, it’s timeless and not to be violated.
The first half of the book is excellent for its presentation of basic issues in immigration. The second half shows a scarcity of theological rigor.
The problem is that since he has already rejected the cosmopolitan worldview, he does not allow that advocacy for such a worldview could be the churches’ current education ministry.
Long stretches of the book are dedicated to telling churches to stay out of politics, and Amstutz relies upon the common misreading of “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” This has been assumed to be Jesus establishing separation of church and state, a concept that arose only after 1648. For Amstutz, it’s timeless and not to be violated.
The first half of the book is excellent for its presentation of basic issues in immigration. The second half shows a scarcity of theological rigor.
March 1, 2025
Informational on the specifics of US immigration policy and its shortcomings, and offers a good critique of simplistic Christian thinking on the topic of immigration policy. I disagreed with the author’s political theology, however, especially when he said that the Church should focus on “moral education” rather than influencing policy specifics. I wonder if Mark Amstutz would say the same about the Christian abolitionists or the pro-life movement. Also, I appreciate thoroughness, but his repetition was tedious at times. I’d say the first half is definitely worth the read!
June 10, 2020
Ponderous, sonorous, complete waste of time. I gave it one star solely on account of the bibliography. It is simply a rehash of of public documents and inane analyses which repeat themselves. No new insight was offered. Anyone who sat in his classes should ask for their money back.
Read
July 3, 2020This is my kind of book - deals with complex issues carefully and provides clear suggestions for how to move forward.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews