Mercy vs Justice : Immigration Reform

Mercy cannot rob justice. If it does, it invalidates the law by eventually rendering it inconsequential.

Misdirected compassion is rampant in the immigration debate. Too many advocate “compassion”—setting aside the law-- for families that will be separated, should illegal immigrants be deported from the United States. A recent article in the Provo Daily Herald states that we in Utah Valley “are all about families”. This argument overlooks an important fact: we in Utah Valley have also always been about obeying the law.

Illegal immigrants are just that: illegal. It is true they are people trying to provide for their families and those families will suffer should we, as a nation, finally decide to enforce our own laws. This does not, however, lessen the absolute necessity of a society to abide by its own ethics and act in its own best long-term interest. It is not in the best long-term interest of America to ignore justice and offer wholesale “mercy” to those who have broken the law to come here.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the individuals who made the decision to come here illegally also made the decision to take the risks connected with that decision—the possibility of deportation and family separation, and their effects on loved ones.  As individuals with the right to choose their own actions, they have done so. How, then, have we evolved to a belief that it is our compassionate duty to protect them from the consequences of their choices?

We can see the core issue by drawing a parallel with parenting. Wise parents set sound rules for their children, with rewards for good behavior and consequences for disobedience.  After the rules are established, parents allow children to choose their actions. Through his choices a child earns for himself either the benefits that lead to his place as a sound, contributing member of society or the consequences that limit his opportunities for trust and further responsibility.

What happens if parents disregard their own rules and decide instead, on a consistent basis, to ignore misbehavior and give the rewards, anyway? Children would quickly learn to ignore the rules and expect the benefits, regardless. It is not likely that these unwise actions by parents would encourage children to understand the need for rules and commit to obey them.

As a nation, we have done the same. We set rules, namely the United States Constitution. According to our rules you can come to our country through a set procedure, become a citizen, and reap the prosperity available to all citizens. Under these circumstances, we welcome you, your talents and skills, and trust that you will be an honest, contributing member of our society because you chose to abide by the law.

 Yet misguided proponents of amnesty support setting aside the law because consequences for lawbreaking will cause problems for families. It is not our collective, constitutional responsibility to erase the pain of illegality and remove the effects of disobedience. That is an individual duty, based on regret for wrongdoing and a decision to abide by the law in future. It is our responsibility to uphold and enforce existing law. By doing so, we show genuine compassion--we create a culture where citizens are safe under the umbrella of fair laws fairly and uniformly enforced; a culture that upholds what is legal (right) and punishes what is illegal (wrong). Within that framework, individuals and nations genuinely flourish long term.

How can a nation that rewards and condones lawbreakers hope to create law-abiding citizens from those it excuses? Do we really believe individual circumstances justify ignoring our laws? How can we find security and prosperity for all Americans by the wholesale abdication of law, not to mention common sense? Finally, how is it fair to those who keep the law to award benefits to the lawless?

Those whose myopic fixation on mercy drives them to advocate amnesty for all illegal immigrants have misunderstood the basic concept of mercy. Scripturally, mercy is granted on a case by case basis to those who feel remorse for wrongdoing. That is the only situation under which it is granted. The mercy we propose to grant through national amnesty to illegal immigrants is to be awarded wholesale, without regard to the individual’s regret for lawbreaking. That is not mercy; it is legal abdication. Either we keep the law or we don’t. If we don’t, we ultimately become an unfair society with the inevitable anarchy and tyranny unequal law always becomes.

Only one set of rules governs a moral universe. What is true for us as parents is true for us as citizens.  Either we decide the law is relevant and govern our actions accordingly or we decide that law is expendable when inconvenient and ultimately become lawless. As a nation we can demonstrate the moral courage to uphold the system of law designated in our national charter. While we feel deep compassion for those who will suffer the consequences of their actions, let us not make the mistake of believing it is our responsibility to spare them those consequences. Mercy cannot trump justice. If it does, it ultimately invites injustice.

- Pam