Immigration and Romans 13

Immigration and Romans 13

Mark R. Glanville and Luke Glanville

Adapted from Refuge Reimagined: Biblical Kinship in Global Politics by Mark R. Glanville and Luke Glanville. Copyright (c) 2021 by Mark R. Glanville and Luke Glanville. Published by InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL. www.ivpress.com

In June 2018, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions invoked Romans 13 to defend the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy, a policy that at the time included separating children from parents or guardians entering the country without documentation, placing these children in shelters or foster care, and prosecuting almost all the adults for illegal entry, including those claiming asylum. “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions declared. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent, fair application of law is in itself a good and moral thing and that protects the weak, it protects the lawful. Our policies that can result in short-term separation of families are not unusual or unjustified.” 

Sessions explained that he was “a law officer for a nation-state. A secular nation-state. . . . It’s not a church. . . . My request to our religious leaders and friends who have criticized the carrying out of our laws: I ask them to speak up forcefully, strongly, to urge anyone who would come here to only come lawfully.”

Sessions’s interpretation of Romans 13 was consistent with that put forward in a Bible study group of which Sessions was a long-time member. Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and several other members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet were also long-time members of this Bible study group, run by Capitol Ministries. In 2016 and again in 2019, the topic of one of the Bible studies was “What the Bible Says About our Illegal Immigration Problem.” The study gives a clear answer: “People who are illegals are a threat to the welfare of those who are citizens. . . . For a government to be pleasing to God and receive His blessing, it has no option but to protect its citizenry from illegal immigration per Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter 2:13-14. It must always protect its borders and punish those who enter illegally.” The study goes further: “Also based upon Romans 13:4 is the inherent responsibility of a government to advance the country, meaning its leaders will want to enact immigration policies that only allow people into the country who can advance it, not detract from it.”

Christian scholars and leaders again and again offer similar interpretations of this passage. Yet Romans 13 says no such thing. The verses that are usually being invoked say:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. . . . [F]or [the authority] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:1, 4)

The passage says nothing about a responsibility—or even a right—of governments to limit immigration. Likewise, it says nothing suggesting a responsibility or right of governments to prioritize the well-being of its people over the well-being of foreigners or to pursue only policies that advance the national interest.

But what about Sessions’s suggestion that Romans 13 requires that people submit themselves to governing authorities? This is different from the claim that Romans 13 instructs governments to protect their borders, but it is one worth addressing since it is brought up so often in debates about the entry of asylum seekers and other migrants lacking documentation. Is the command to submit to governing authorities to be interpreted as absolute, without exception? 

Consider what precedes the passage in question. Romans 12 requires the church in Rome to reorient itself to the will of God that is revealed in Jesus Christ: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2). Accordingto Romans 12, to discern the will of God means weeping with those who weep (Rom 12:15), associating with the lowly (Rom 12:16), and feeding one’s enemy (Rom 12:20). These two points must not be missed: Christians are called to discern the will of God, including how God’s will relates to governmental legislation, and compassion should be discernment’s defining principle. In our contemporary context of modern democracies, we must submit to the authorities in the normal run of things, and yet it is also possible and even responsible to challenge the unjust laws of governments.

When considering the biblical role of government, particularly in relation to immigration issues, Western readers often start and finish with Romans 13. Yet, what if we started with Revelation 13 and its portrayal of the empire as a hideous sea monster? Renowned New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham suggests this image presents Rome as “a system of tyranny and exploitation.” The theologian Mark Brett notes: “How anomalous the surface meaning of Romans 13 is when considered against the wider background of the Bible’s relentlessly reiterated critique of unjust monarchies and empires, including the Roman empire of Paul’s own day.” We need to be careful lest, in insisting that undocumented asylum seekers and other migrants obey federal law, we and our nations disobey God’s higher law, including the call repeatedly given in Scripture to extend protection to vulnerable people (e.g. Deut 10:18–19).

Not all laws are just. Consider Pharaoh’s instruction to Hebrew midwives to murder newborn boys—which the midwives disobeyed (Ex 1:15-21). Consider similarly Nebuchadnezzar’s decree that people bow before his image—which some rightly refused (Dan 3). Jesus himself on occasion disobeyed the laws of the land, and this especially for the sake of those in need (Mt 12:1-14). Peter and John refused the Jewish authorities’ demand to cease from speaking in the name in Jesus (Acts 4:19-20). Peter insisted, “We must obey God rather than any human authority” (Acts 5:29).

Christians over the centuries have repeatedly insisted that Romans 13 should not be understood as ruling out the possibility of challenging unjust laws and even disobeying them in certain circumstances. Think of the civil disobedience activities of the civil rights movement in America. Think of missionaries preaching in countries where it is illegal to do so. Indeed, think of the esteem in which —rightly or wrongly—many Americans hold their revolutionary founding fathers!

The right to seek asylum is inscribed in international law in the 1951 Refugee Convention and universalized in the 1967 Protocol. At the very least, this should give us pause before accepting the justice of domestic laws allowing the rejection and punishment of asylum seekers who cross borders without documentation—and even more so since these US laws have been accompanied in recent years by a series of increasingly troubling policies aimed at limiting the legalavenues for applying for asylum at the US-Mexico border. Christians have a responsibility to discern the will of God (Rom 12:2) with regard to refugee and immigration legislation and to advocate for compassionate reform where necessary. In some circumstances, Christians may need to defend the rights of those in desperate circumstances who cross borders without a visa. They may need even to break the law themselves to defend the rights of vulnerable people.