What does the Bible teach regarding immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees?
Immigration policies and the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees have become major issues of concern at global and national levels. After providing a brief background to the context of the issue and some associated concerns, I will endeavour to present a biblical perspective. What does the Bible say, through example or directive, about being an immigrant or refugee? Is there a biblical theology of displaced persons? Does the Bible provide guidelines as to how we should treat people that arrive at our borders seeking asylum or opportunity?
Background and Definitions
Refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country. Refugees are protected under international law, to which Australia and the US are signatories. The 1951 UN Refugee Convention defines a refugee as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” An asylum seeker is someone who is seeking international protection but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been determined.[1] A general term for both is “displaced person.” Due to global conflicts, persecution and other tragedies, the world now experiences the highest levels of displacement on record, exceeding that of the aftermath of World War II. 70.8 million people worldwide have been forced from their homes, among them 25.9 million recognised refugees, over half of which are under 18. There are also millions of stateless people who have been denied a nationality and access to basic rights.[2]
Every year, around one million people seek asylum, and national asylum systems are in place to determine who qualifies for national protection. However, due to the nature of the circumstances such as conflict and persecution, it is not always possible or necessary to individually interview every asylum seeker so they are regarded as “prima facie refugees.”[3] At the end of 2018 there were about 3.5 million people worldwide awaiting decisions on their asylum claims.[4] Not every asylum seeker will be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee is initially an asylum seeker. A refugee status determination (RSD) is used by governments and the UNHCR to determine whether a person seeking protection is legally a refugee; the process can be lengthy and complicated and is imperfect.
In contrast, migrants are people who choose to move, not because of a direct threat or persecution but mainly to improve their lives, by finding work, seeking better education and/or reuniting with family. Unlike refugees, who cannot return home, migrants can return home if they wish, and individual governments manage migrants under their own immigration laws and processes. The International Organisation of Migration estimates that 232 million people per year become international migrants and another 740 million move within their own countries. Those who seek work or a better life are termed economic migrants, but migrants may also move for study, or to escape war and persecution. A given migrant may have a mix of motivations.[5] Both Australia and the USA in their modern iterations as nations are founded on immigration. Immigration has demonstrated economic and cultural benefits in these societies.[6] Migrants may seek permanent relocation, or temporary stays. In Australia, permanent migration is regulated and capped; temporary migration is not capped by government, but fluctuates according to demand, which is in turn influenced by local and global factors. Some temporary migrants seek permanent residency.[7]
Both Australia and the USA are societies in which white anglo-europeans displaced the native populations and gained control of the land, and whose current prosperity and cultural diversity has been built on immigration. These governments now determine the extent to which people of other races and cultures may in turn be welcomed into the nation or turned away. Governments are influenced by many agendas and considerations and may have a relatively open or closed immigration policy. Globally, one movement that is especially influential in more restrictive or closed policies is nationalism. Broadly speaking, nationalism is an ideology based on the premise that an individual’s loyalty and devotion to their nation/state surpasses other individual or group interests.[8]
There have been, and still are, movements to restrict immigration qualitatively, that is, to be more accepting of immigrants from certain races and cultures (typically white/European) than others. Past examples are the various iterations of the “White Australia Policy” which actively discriminated against immigrants of non-European origin in the twentieth century.[9] This period also gave rise to “replacement” theories among white far-right nationalists, that white European populations are being replaced with non-European peoples. This takes a number of forms, such as that promoted by Renaud Camus’ The Great Replacement (2011) plus some overtly anti-semitic movements.[10] These extremist positions need to be balanced against what some would regard as a genuine concern for the loss of national identity and imposition of external cultural and religious values and laws. One response to this concern is the Australian Department of Home Affairs Australian Values Statement as a prerequisite for visa application.[11]
An illegal immigrant is someone who lives or works in another country when they do not have the legal right to do so, however the term is highly contested. The Global Compact of Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was agreed by 164 countries in December 2018; notably the USA and Australia were not signatories. There is often no clear line between those who cross borders as “immigrants” without authorisation, asylum seekers or refugees. For more information see Bloom, 2018.[12] An example of this ambiguity is the situation of the “Dreamers;” young adults who came to the USA unlawfully or who overstayed their visas and have known no other culture than that of the USA. They were covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) Act of 2012, so as to be eligible to work and eventually obtain legal status without fear of deportation, however this was revoked by the current administration in 2017.[13]
There is inequality in the way countries respond to “illegal immigrants,” which may be underlain by biases in terms of gender, country of origin and religion. For example, men are overrepresented (90%) as forcibly removed from the UK, and US citizens overstaying their visas were the largest group of “unlawful non-citizens” in Australia in 2015, although none were put into immigration detention. Conversely, sometimes Australian or US citizens of non-white ethnic origin are mistakenly identified as illegals and wrongfully detained.[14]
As of December 2019, there are 1397 people held in detention in Australia, of which 314 have spent more than 730 days in detention and 461 are detained because they sought asylum by boat. There are 2424 children in community detention or on bridging visas and 3 children in detention facilities. The average time a person spends in detention in Australia is 496 days.[15] In terms of international refugee acceptance, in 2018 Australia ranked 45th overall, 50th per capita and 88th relative to national GDP. In 2018 Australia recognised or resettled 23,002 refugees (1.39% of the global total), being ranked 14th overall, 20th per capita and 60th relative to national GDP. [16] In the same year, 2018, Australia’s migration cap was 190 000.[17] In contrast, the next largest refugee crisis was after World War II when there were an estimated 11 million displaced persons in Europe.[18] Between 1945 and 1965 more than two million migrants came to Australia. Most were assisted: the Commonwealth Government paid most of their fare to get to Australia. In return they had to stay in Australia for at least two years and work in whatever jobs the Government gave them. The program was an enormous success.[19]
The Australia immigrant detention system has come under scrutiny, with allegations of abuse, self harm and neglect. The 2017 report of the Senate inquiry found that Australia’s current policy of offshore-processing program is deeply flawed. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection failed to provide safe living conditions, leading to the many allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect in Regional Processing Centres (RPC). The report also criticises the “culture of secrecy” around the management of the RPCs. This has created an unacceptable lack of accountability and transparency, and a failure to clearly acknowledge where the duty of care lies for people seeking asylum. The main factors contributing to abuse, self-harm and neglect were a harsh living environment, inadequate health services, prolonged family separation, uncertainty about the future exacerbated by over-long detention times, lack of child protection framework and lack of accountability, transparency and scrutiny by the authorities. The cost of offshore processing and detention was regarded as a significant burden on the taxpayer. The previous 2014 Senate inquiry recommendations found that the Australian Government has a duty of care to people held in RPCs to treat them in accordance with international standards, including the right to not be punished for seeking asylum, the prohibition of arbitrary detention and indefinite detention, and the right to enjoy the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health.[20] Arbitrary detention would encompass discriminatory detention base on ethnicity; recall that no US citizens of illegal status were detained.
US detention practices have also been criticised. An article on detention of immigrant children by Linton et al in Pediatrics (2017) raised significant issues of concern for paediatricians and child advocates with respect to immigrant children seeking safe haven in the US. They found that DHS facilities did not meet the minimum standard of care for children and provide a policy statement.[21] Significant concern has also been raised about the current US administration’s family separation policy.[22] Also controversial are Executive Orders 13769 and 13780 (also known as the “Muslim Ban” or “Travel Ban”).[23] A major concern was that the Muslim majority countries targeted by the ban were undergoing significant humanitarian crises resulting in large numbers of asylum seekers and refugees in need of sanctuary. The debate has been influenced by inflammatory rhetoric promoting unsubstantiated claims and generalisations, such as the implication that “Mexicans are rapists” and “Muslims are terrorists,” countered by evidence of the growing threat of white-supremacy based home-grown terrorism. Suggestions that illegal immigrants have adverse effects on the American economy and crime rates have been challenged,[24] as well as the assertion that illegal immigrants are the primary perpetrators of terrorist attacks.[25] Nevertheless, the current US administration’s immigration policy finds support among Christian evangelicals.
A Biblical Response
For the purposes of this discussion, whilst acknowledging the significant differences between migrants (legal and illegal), asylum seekers and refugees, I will often refer to them collectively as displaced persons. In other words, for whatever reason, they are people who want to be somewhere other than where they came from. I will proceed to examine what examples of displaced persons are presented in the Bible, and what the Bible says about being a displaced person. I will then examine the examples and imperatives regarding treatment of displaced persons both personally and politically.
A biblical historical account of strangers and pilgrims
Genesis describes the origin of the first nations after the flood. The peoples spread into their own territories, each with their own language (Gen 10:4). The next chapter details how this differentiation occurred; it was the result of sin. The Lord scattered humanity and confused their languages because they had refused to fill the earth as God commanded (Gen 9:7) and tried to gain fame and power on their own terms (Gen 11:1–8). One of these family lines was that of Shem, from whom came Abraham. Abraham was to father great nations, especially the one through whom the blessing of the Seed would come (Gen 12:2–3; 15:4-5; 17:5-7; 22:17–18). Abraham was also promised the land of Canaan as an eternal inheritance (Gen 12:7; 13:14–17; 15:18–21; 17:8) yet he never owned any of it in his life time except a small plot for family burials (Gen 23; Acts 7:2–5). Rather, Abraham moved around a lot. He left his father’s country to travel to the land God promised him, he went to Egypt to escape famine, moved out of Lot’s way, stayed in Gerar, among the Philistines and disputed water rights at Beersheba (Gen 12:1–6, 10; 13:1–12; 20:1; 21:22–34). His son Isaac likewise kept roaming around, avoiding famine, searching for water and living in tents (Gen 26). Jacob, too, led a mobile existence (Heb 11:9) fleeing back to Haran via Bethel (Gen 27:41–28:14) and then escaping back to Canaan but avoiding Esau before eventually returning to Bethel (Gen 31–33; 35:1–15). Jacob and his sons eventually fled to Egypt to avoid starvation in the face of famine (Gen 46), fulfilling what God predicted to Abraham (Gen 15:13–16). Moses was forced to flee Pharaoh after killing an Egyptian, and spent forty years in asylum in Midian (Ex 2:11–22). “I have become an alien in a foreign land,” he said.
Source: https://www.conformingtojesus.com/charts-maps/en/map_of_the_journeys_of_abraham_isaac_jacob.htm
The exodus was God’s mighty act of deliverance of his people from oppression. He brought them 40 years through the wilderness to the land he had promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to give their descendants. God restored the dignity of the former slaves (Lev 26:13) but he also humbled them in their journey of dependence on him (Deut 8:2–5, 15–18). During their wilderness travels they were bullied and attacked (Ex 17:8–13; Num 21:1–3; Num 21:33–35; 22:16ff) and denied access to territory controlled by antagonistic nations in the first recorded act of border control (Num 21:21–25). God also set limits on the territory they could conquer, and it was he who gave other nations into their hands and determined the control of territory (Deut 2:19–23; 7:1–2). The Israelites’ position was unique; God specifically promised them that land. God chose Israel, not because they were greater or better than other nations, but because of his promises to their forefathers; his continued favour was dependent on their obedience (Deut 7:6–11; 9:1–6). God established Israel’s border (Num 34); he gave them the land formerly occupied by other nations. Those nations had forfeited their right to the land because of their pagan ways (Gen 15:16; Ex 23:23–33; Lev 20:23) as would Israel. Israel were to never forget their origins as “wandering Syrians” who were enslaved in Egypt and delivered by God, and were to acknowledge that everything they had, including their land, came from God (Deut 26:5–11).
God brought the Israelites into the promised land and established them there. There ensued a cycle of rebellion, idolatry, oppression, repentance and deliverance through the period of the judges and into the time of the monarchy. During the period of the judges, a famine forced Elimelech of Bethlehem in Judah to take his family to Moab, a move which surely defines them as “economic immigrants.” They settled there for ten years until the males in the family died and Elimelech’s widow Naomi returned to Bethlehem with her widowed daughter-in-law, Ruth (Ruth 1). They were destitute, and Ruth had to provide food by utilising the Law’s provision for aliens and impoverished persons to glean in the fields of landowners during harvest (Ruth 2). Ruth had no other “rights” under the Law, in fact as a Moabite she should not have been permitted to join the covenant people (Deut 23:3–6). Yet her actions and status were evidently blessed, because she not only found a new home (Ruth 3–4) but became the great-grandmother of king David and one of only four women listed in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (Matt 1:5). This was a significant example of the way God’s compassionate laws worked, albeit briefly, in Israel. A more subtle example was Ithmah the Moabite who served as one of David’s “mighty men” (1 Chron 11:46).
Probably the most famous Old Testament example of a refugee was David, who spent years as a political outcast during the reign of Saul (1 Sam 20–30). Later in his own reign David was forced to flee again, this time by his own mutinous son Absalom (2 Sam 15–19). While David was on the run from Saul, he sent his parents to Moab, asking the king to take care of them, presumably because he was fearful for their safety and also their comfort as he was living in the wilderness (1 Sam 22:1–42). Perhaps he thought his distant family connections might be reliable. Unfortunately the next thing we read about David and Moab is his especially brutal retaliation against them (2 Sam 8:1–2). No reason is given for the extreme response, but it is possible the Moabites had failed to protect, or even overtly harmed, David’s family in their asylum. In another disturbing episode, David exacted revenge on the descendants of Saul because they had mistreated the Gibeonites, foreigners with whom Joshua had made a covenant and who had been permitted to remain in Israel as resident aliens (Josh 9; Josh 10:1–15; 2 Sam 21:1–6). Even though the Gibeonites had deceived Joshua (somewhat understandably, since they were trying to get asylum rather than be slaughtered) the covenant Israel made before God concerning these indisputably illegal aliens had to be honoured.
There are some examples of flight that probably shouldn’t be emulated. Jeroboam, tagged by the prophet Ahijah as Israel’s future king and undoubtedly considered a traitor, fled to Egypt from Solomon (1 Kgs 11:20–40) and God later made him king on his return although Jeroboam subsequently turned against God (1 Kgs 12:12–20). Elijah fled Jezebel but seems to be chastised rather than commended for this (1 Kgs 19:1–18). After the fall of Jerusalem, a band of remaining Jews disobeyed the express command of God and went to Egypt, carrying a reluctant Jeremiah with them and earning a dreadful rebuke and promise of severe punishment (Jer 42–44). The reason this asylum-seeking was condemned was that God wanted a remnant to remain in Judah because he planned to return the exiles and show compassion on his people again. To go to Egypt was to be tempted once more into idolatry and further abandonment of God.
As a result of Israel’s idolatry and rebellion against God, and their disregard of his laws, they were destroyed by the Assyrians and sent into permanent exile (2 Kgs 17:1–23). A generation or so later Judah was conquered and most of the people led captive, as God predicted (2 Kgs 20:16–18; 2 Kgs 25). God promised he would make them prosper in captivity and told them to settle down and seek the good of their new home. Notable “immigrants” who made a positive contribution to Babylonian and Medo-Persian society were Daniel, his three companions and Esther. After seventy years God brought them back from exile, as he promised (Jer 25:11–12; Dan 9:2; Ezra 1), and they met opposition from the new local power-brokers in the Trans-Jordan province (Neh 2:10; 4, 6). Not all of the people returned to Judah, however, and in the intertestamental period and beyond, a thriving diaspora Judaism was established which was to become the basis for Jewish survival through the subsequent millennia. Notably, both Alexandria in Egypt and Babylon became centres of Jewish scholarship and culture and Alexandrian scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek. The Greek Bible or Septuagint was the “Scripture” of Jesus and the early church.
With such a significant history of God’s people being displaced persons, and God using their situations for his purposes, we come to the antitype of so many Old Testament people and events, Jesus himself. Hosea’s declaration that God called his “son” Israel out of Egypt found greater fulfilment in the calling of his incarnate Son out of Egypt also (Hos 11:1; Matt 2:13–16). Contrary to a popular misconception, Mary and Joseph did not come to Bethlehem as refugees. Rather, they were returning to their ancestral home, the home of the family of David (Luke 2:1–5). However, Herod sought to kill the promised Davidic king and Joseph took Mary and Jesus to Egypt; in this they were refugees. Even when they returned to Palestine after the death of Herod, they avoided their ancestral homeland because Herod’s son Archelaus was reigning. So they were effectively still refugees when they made the detour back to Nazareth (Luke 2: 13–23). All this was, of course, God’s plan, because the Christ had to be born in Bethlehem, yet Jesus was also to hail from lowly Galilee, a situation which Jesus’ adversaries failed to grasp (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4–6; Isa 9:1–2; John 1:46; John 7:52). During his ministry, Jesus moved freely between the various Roman provinces, crossing between Jewish and Gentile areas and travelling through Samaria. Although the Jews despised the Samaritans and Gentiles and would endeavour to avoid contact with them (John 4:4–9), there were evidently no political boundaries or practical impediments to travel (Matt 4:25; Mark 7:31).
Jesus was nevertheless a “displaced person.” He laid aside his former glory, humbling himself in coming into the world to serve and to save us (Mark 10:45; Phil 2:4–8; 2 Cor 8:9). During his ministry he had “no place to lay his head” (Luke 9:58). He suffered “outside the city,” literally and metaphorically (Heb 13:12–14) and Christians are called to join him in his reproach, acknowledging that we too have no lasting city in this world.
The martyr Stephen recounted a potted history of the Jewish people in his defence before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7). The speech was an answer to the accusation that he had spoken against the holy place and the laws and customs delivered by Moses (Acts 6:13–14). Stephen addressed these charges by showing that God’s people had a history of displacement, and that God had been with them in all their uprootedness. God was not confined to the land of Israel, and certainly not to the Temple. Notable figures such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Moses had been displaced persons, even refugees. Nevertheless, God was with his people in Mesopotamia, Haran, Egypt and the wilderness; it wasn’t until Solomon built him a temple that the God of Israel had a fixed dwelling place. But even that was a mere symbol, for God doesn’t live in hand-made buildings, but fills heaven and earth. The Jewish leaders rejected this argument and stoned Stephen. This prompted the first mass persecution of Christians, resulting in the displacement of all but the apostles throughout Judea and Samaria. God used this to spread the gospel (Acts 8:1–8; 11:19–26). Since then, wherever Christians have been displaced as migrants, exiles or refugees they have spread the gospel. Two centuries later in the midst of persecution of Christians in Carthage, Tertullian would claim that the blood of Christians was seed.[26]
Eventually, the gospel spread to God-fearing Gentiles associated with the synagogues, who had stopped short of full conversion to Judaism, but who knew the Septuagint scriptures (Acts 8:26–39; Acts 10). It was then one relatively easy step to the conversion of pagan Gentiles. Nevertheless, continuing Jewish antagonism caused the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, to flee persecution on occasion ( Acts 17: 5–14; 2 Cor 11:23–33). There was also sporadic persecution of Jews and Christians (who at this stage were considered by the authorities to be a sect of Judaism) by the Romans. The emperor Claudius evicted Jews from Rome in AD 41–54 (Acts 18:1–2). The Roman historian Suetonius (60–122 AD) mentions this expulsion in his biography Divus Claudius 25, referring to agitations at the instigation of “Chresto,” which is arguably a reference to the leader of the sect of Christians. John received the Revelation of Jesus Christ whilst on the island of Patmos “on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus,” referring to himself as “your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus” (Rev 1:9). This seems to imply persecution, but it is debated whether John had been exiled to Patmos or was there for another reason.
Several conclusions can be tentatively drawn from this biblical-historical overview of exile, displacement and asylum seeking. There were a range of reasons why people in the biblical account were displaced, some arguably more “legitimate” than others, but God was always in control and using the situation providentially. There is a demonstrable theme of displacement and exile throughout the historical account. Generally, it seems to have been a way by which God preserved his people from oppression and threat of harm. It taught them dependence on him and typified the broader “exile” God’s people experience from their true spiritual home. Even “economic immigrants” appear validated and were expected to be treated well. It is difficult to make a case from the historical account that God is “anti-refugee” or “anti-immigration.” It seemed to just be, as it is now, a sad fact of life, and a common consequence of a fallen world. In the next section I will examine how God expected Israel to treat the stranger within their borders and follow on with the prophetic imperatives to care for the vulnerable and the consequences for Israel when they failed to do so.
Israel’s law and practice
The ancient nation of Israel was a theocracy, and its laws — civil, moral, liturgical — were given by God. One subset of laws dealt explicitly with aliens; the strangers, sojourners, exiles or refugees among them. They were to be well treated, because Israel themselves had been strangers in Egypt and knew what it felt like. “You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Ex 23:9).
Aliens were to be treated like native-born; "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God” (Lev 19:33–34). Strangers were not to be taken advantage of; “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to the LORD, and you be guilty of sin” (Deut 24:14–15). Aliens were not to be denied justice; “You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow’s garment in pledge, but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this” (Deut 24:17–18).
In particular, aliens were to be provided for by the rule that forbad collecting every vestige of one’s harvest. Odd sheaves of grain, second pickings of olives and grapes, fallen fruit had to be left “for the sojourner, the fatherless and the widow” (Lev 19:9–10; Deut 24:19–22). It was this provision that Ruth was able to take advantage of in the fields of Boaz, and was treated like one of the regular workers.
Nevertheless, there were three important restrictions on Israel’s involvement with “aliens.” Firstly, the people of the land whom the conquering Israelites encountered were to be driven out and destroyed, because of their established religion which would inevitably tempt the Israelites into idolatry (Deut 7). Israel failed to do this (Judg 1:19–36) and inevitably got drawn away from God (Judg 2:10–23). The pattern repeated itself over and over in the period of the judges and during the monarchy. In this situation it was the “immigrants,” the incoming conquerors, who were to deal decisively with the native inhabitants. But the unique directive which God gave to Israel must not be misappropriated to justify colonialism or displacement today; no nation today is the theocracy of Yahweh, a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” in covenant relationship with him (Ex 19:5–6). No nation today has a mission from the God of the Bible to wipe out or exploit another.
Secondly, as part of the protection against assimilating the idolatry and immorality of the Canaanites, the Israelites were forbidden to intermarry with them (Deut 7:1–4). Solomon was drawn away from God by his pagan wives and concubines who were immigrants from other nations (1 Kgs 11:1–8). When the Jews returned from exile they again broke covenant with God by intermarriage with pagans and had to be reprimanded and the marriages dissolved (Ezra 9–10; Neh 13:1–3). This restriction does not apply today; the only restriction on Christian marriage is that it be “in the Lord,” not along ethnic lines (1 Cor 7:39; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11).
The third restriction was the special case of Ammonites and Moabites, who were forbidden to enter the assembly of the Lord because of their failure to provide provisions to the Israelites when they were displaced, and corrupted the Israelites with sexually promiscuous idolatrous worship (Deut 23:3–8). These nations had failed to support the migrating Israelites and would in turn be denied support as immigrants. These nations had a corrupting influence and would not be permitted to intermarry. There was no stated restriction on these people entering the land; they just could not become “citizens” or marry Israelites. How was it then that Ruth the Moabitess was permitted to enter the “assembly” and marry Boaz? The key would seem to be that Ruth disowned her Moabite heritage and religion. There was no question of the women taking their religion with them to Israel; Orpah “went back to her people and her gods,” at Naomi’s urging. Ruth, however, clung to Naomi and said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16). Nor was the restriction of citizenship universal; “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land. Children born to them in the third generation may enter the assembly of the LORD” (Deut 23:7–8). The ideal was that foreigners coming to Israel would be converted to the worship of the one true God; the Temple itself was to be an attraction to foreigners (1 Kgs 8:41–43).
In summary, there seems to have been, at least in times of peace, free exchange across borders with no evidence of physical exclusion. Moabites and Ammonites were not normally granted “citizenship” and marriage bans were in place to prevent religious corruption. It was their past and potential future practices that were the issue, yet the example of Ruth shows that if they accepted God they could be welcomed.
The prophets not only admonished the people and their leaders for the religious corruption, syncretism and immoral practices associated with idolatry. They also had much to say about what would now be termed human rights abuses. Mistreatment of the vulnerable, especially the poor, the fatherless and widows, was rife and the prophets railed against it. “Thus says the LORD, do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place” (Jer 22:3). Jeremiah warned the people of Judah not to trust in the Temple (the symbol of God’s presence in the land) as if it would magically protect them if they did not repent of their oppressive practices. Only if they truly amended their ways, executing justice, and not oppress the sojourner, fatherless or widow or shed innocent blood or worship other gods would they be permitted to remain in the land (Jer 7:4–7). Otherwise, they would be cast out and become displaced persons.
Amidst a litany of evil deeds perpetrated by the people of Judah, Ezekiel includes “the sojourner suffers extortion in your midst; the fatherless and the widow are wronged in you... The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery. They have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without justice” (Ezek 22:7, 29). In the idealised worship community Ezekiel detailed from his vision, sojourners would be assigned an inheritance in whatever tribe they resided (Ezek 47:23). Zechariah, prophesying to those returned from exile, reminded them that their ancestors were scattered among the nations because of their refusal to hear God and render true judgements, show kindness and mercy to each other, and not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor (Zech 7:9–14). Malachi also berated the returnees for falling into the old corrupt ways; God would judge the adulterers, liars, and the oppressors of hired workers, widows, orphans and those “who thrust aside the sojourner”(Mal 3:5).
Sojourners and aliens in the ancient near east were very vulnerable. They had no homes and no livelihoods and doubtless few possessions or regular employment. They were utterly dependent on the goodwill of their hosts. This is essentially the same picture as displaced persons today; “illegal” immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees. God included them with widows, orphans and the poor as people who were to receive particular care. Failure to provide it earned God’s censure and ultimately led to the Israelites’ own exile.
The teachings of Jesus
One of the challenges of Old Testament interpretation is determining what is normative and still applicable today, in contrast to what only applied to the theocracy of ancient Israel. Should those laws about care of immigrants and refugees apply in Australia or the USA or elsewhere today, or can they be set aside like rules about mixed fabrics and sacrificial animals? The other important consideration is that in the western world we do not live in a theocracy. Although many of our laws have their basis in Judaeo-Christian morality and law, and many people admire and aspire to what they understand to be “Christian” standards, our states are fundamentally secular. Times and circumstances have also changed. There were evidently no border patrols or barriers to immigration back then. At least in peacetime, people moved around the great empires, travelling and trading with relative freedom. Today we have national sovereignty expressed in borders and national laws, as well as concerns about global terrorism and the spread of disease. Nevertheless, boundaries between clans and nations were recognised, taxes and tolls were collected from travellers and traders, and the Law of Moses was concerned with quarantine procedures, at least on a local scale.
We know that many laws, particularly those pertaining to sexual morality, are timeless, because they are reiterated in the New Testament. In fact, Jesus amplifies them and makes them stricter, because they become matters of conscience and motivation rather than just outward adherence. The one who hates has effectively murdered; the one who lusts has effectively committed adultery (Matt 5:19–28). It will be clearly demonstrated in what follows, that the principles behind the ancient laws for care of strangers not only still apply, but if anything are amplified in the teachings of Jesus and throughout the New Testament.
Many people today think of strangers, immigrants and refugees as “other;” as intrinsically suspect persons, even as “enemies.” But the biblical examples discussed above show that displacement can happen to anyone, and is hardly a lifestyle choice. Millions of Christians experience it today. When asked what would be the signs of his coming and of the end of the age, Jesus warned that a time of trouble would come, unequal to anything before or after. Leaving aside the question of whether this referred to the destruction of Jerusalem or the second coming (or in some sense both), one of the notable features of this tribulation is that God’s people would be displaced. Those in Judea would have to flee to the mountains, there would not be time to gather possessions, and they would escape with only the clothes on their back (Matt 24:16–21). Refugee status is something that can happen to anyone, even the people of God, and in itself it is not a crime. Whilst not minimising the threat of terrorism, it is evident that often whole cultures, religions or people groups are assumed to be tainted by the ideas and actions of extremists. It is illogical, uninformed and cruel to vilify people of other ethnicities or religions as undesirables, criminals, terrorists or “enemies;” it flies in the face of the evidence and the Golden Rule to treat others as we wish to be treated. The illegitimacy of xenophobic generalisations aside, Jesus challenges us on the personal level with respect to those we might (rightly or wrongly) perceive as “enemies.” In fact, he directs our love toward not only “enemies,” a relatively passive label, but also active “persecutors.”
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:43–48).
What this means is that even though extremists certainly commit atrocities, even though particular cultures may be vilified, feared or poorly understood, on a personal level our attitude to those broader people-groups is not to reflect hatred or seek retaliation, nor to reply in kind. They are not to be treated as enemies. Paul reiterates Jesus’ imperative:
“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom 12:18–21)
The most important matters of the Law, which are apt to be neglected, are justice, mercy and faithfulness (Matt 23:23). Jesus reiterated that the greatest commandment in the Law was to love God with all one’s heart and soul and mind and strength, and the second greatest was to love one’s neighbour as oneself (Matt 22:36–40). This begged the question, who exactly is our neighbour? To which Jesus replied with the parable of the “good” Samaritan (Luke 10:27–37).
The term “good Samaritan” has fallen into such popular use that we can forget its origin. We might assume that the original Samaritans were rather like the Salvation Army, going about doing good and helping people from sheer altruism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The term is a shocking contradiction in terms to the original audience. The “good” Samaritan went out of his way to help a Jew who had been mugged. If Jesus were replying to Jews in Israel today, rather than 2000 years ago, he might have told a story about a Palestinian Arab, or an anti-semite helping a Jew. Or if the audience were white nationalists, the hero could have been a Muslim immigrant. The story is that radical. First century Jews hated Samaritans, on racial and religious grounds, and the feeling was mutual. A story of a Samaritan stopping to help a Jew, administering first aid and paying for his recuperation would have been totally unbelievable to the point of being offensive. When Jesus asked which passer-by had truly been a neighbour to the victim, the lawyer could only, with great reluctance, reply, “The one who showed mercy on him.” As if he couldn’t even bear to say the word, “Samaritan”! Then, even more outrageously, Jesus told him, “You go, and do likewise.”
Christians are commanded by our Lord to love and serve even those we fear, dislike and most vehemently disagree with. There is no room for racism or religious bigotry, none at all. Anyone claiming to be Christian who speaks or acts against a person of different ethnicity or religious belief blatantly disobeys Jesus. That means, putting it bluntly, that person is no friend of Jesus and not truly Christian. “You are my friends,” Jesus said, “if you do what I command you” (John 15:12) and the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour (Mark 12:28–31). What’s even more interesting in Jesus’ choice of a Samaritan as his shocking hero, was that he himself disagreed with Samaritan theology and practices. In John 4, Jesus has a conversation with a Samaritan woman and gently, graciously, but firmly corrects her theological position and challenges her personal immorality. Yet he shows no hate whatsoever in doing this. In fact, she is one of the very few people in the Bible’s record to whom he actually explained who he is. Our society has lost the ability to love someone if we disagree with them, or they are “different” from us. Instead, we feel obliged to hate, denigrate and even abuse those with whom we disagree or distrust. But loving our neighbour does not mean we have to agree on all points, nor does it mean we necessarily condone their beliefs, culture or activities. Likewise, disagreeing with someone’s religious or cultural beliefs should not mean we have to hate and denigrate them as people. Mexicans are not predominately rapists, and not all Muslims are terrorists, and we should not characterise them so. Jesus makes it clear that all people, even those with whom we find no common ground, are our neighbours, whom we are to love.
It might be argued that Jesus is only concerned with personal responses and not national policy. National security surely means a government can’t just let anyone in, can’t just “forgive” enemies or ignore threats, cannot allow its citizens to be abused by terrorists, raiders, or enemies in times of conflict. That’s a valid point, but we need to be careful not to blur the issue. Refugees, asylum seekers and “illegal” immigrants do not necessarily pose a threat to national security, although they are often presented as such (see background discussion). Proven criminal intent, deception and the need for background checks and security precautions aside, how should refugees, asylum seekers and illegals be treated?
Interestingly, Jesus does address this question, in Matthew 25:31–46. He states that when he, the Son of Man, comes in his glory and takes his throne, all the nations will be gathered before him and the people separated into two distinct camps. Those people who have fed the hungry, given water to the thirsty, showed hospitality to strangers, clothed the naked, treated the sick and visited the imprisoned will be blessed by the Father and receive the promised inheritance. On the other hand, those who neglect to feed the hungry, provide water to the thirsty or clothes to the naked, who do not invite the stranger in, or look after the sick or imprisoned, will be told, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” That is an eternal condemnation, in no uncertain terms. Jesus couches the actions of both groups as directed for or against himself personally. Whatever was done or not done for “the least of these brothers of mine,” was done or not done for Jesus himself. Similarly, when confronting Saul the persecutor, Jesus accused Saul of persecuting himself, Jesus, in his persecution of Christians (Acts 9:4–5).
It could therefore be argued that Jesus’ analogy of the sheep and goats only applies to the actions of people and nations against Christians, and that is exegetically valid. However, that does not mean that we can ignore Christ’s imperative to treat enemies with love, or to “go and do likewise” to the “Samaritans” of our day. The other point to remember is, many refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are Christians. Perhaps nominally so, or of a different tradition, but that is not for us to judge. We don’t know anyone’s heart, only the Lord knows who are his (2 Tim 2:19). The US ban on accepting refugees and immigrants from Syria did not just affect Muslims; thousands of Syrian Christians had been persecuted and displaced by ISIS. Large numbers of south and central American asylum seekers are Catholic Christians. Of the over 70 million refugees at the end of 2018, over 6.5 million come from Syria, over 2 million from South Sudan, and several million from other African countries with significant Christian populations.[27] For the millions of refugees who are not confessing Christians, the mandate to “go and do likewise” to our neighbours would still apply. Additionally, if Christians work collectively in aid of refugees, it is a powerful testimony to the love of Christ and a potential attraction to the gospel. The great commission requires interaction with people of all nations, and effective preaching of the gospel requires attention to physical as well as spiritual needs (Matt 28:19; James 2:8–18). We should think about what message we send, what picture of the gospel we paint, if we do turn our back on the needy because they are “not like us.” In particular, Jesus gave an imperative to welcome little children in his name (Matt 19:14; Luke 18:15–17) which should inform the treatment of refugee, asylum seeking and “illegal” children.
Jesus calls his people to generosity; “Give to everyone who asks you” (Luke 6:30). He warns of the danger of the love of money and chastises those who are unwilling to share (Luke 18:22–25). All we have comes from God; we are only stewards of our money, goods, land and the comforts of western society. As discussed above, even our own nations are given us by God, they are not ours by right. For a Christian, this life can never be about securing wealth, comfort and security for ourselves while neglecting others. In fact, the more we have, the better off we are, the more we are obligated to serve the needy. “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more” (Luke 12:48). Jesus told the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:13–21) to warn those comfortably off not to think only of themselves in the disposition of their God-given resources. He reminds us to not just share with our friends and those who can repay us. We are rather to invite the poor, crippled, lame and blind (displaced persons in that day) to our banquets, specifically those who cannot recompense us (Luke 14:12–14). The eternal consequences of lack of generosity to the destitute were reinforced in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31).
These themes are reiterated by the apostles. The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil; we brought nothing into this world and can take nothing out of it (1 Tim 6:6–10). Rather, those who are rich in this present world are not to be arrogant, or trust in their wealth, but rather rich in good deeds, generous and willing to share (1 Tim 6:17–19). Greed and heartlessness are two of the depravities of those who have rejected the knowledge of God; not only do they practice them but approve of others who do (Rom 1:29–32). In contrast, those who know Christ’s redeeming grace must not conform to the pattern of this world (Rom 12:2) but rather share, practice hospitality, associate with people of low position, show practical love to “enemies” and overcome evil with good (Rom 12:13, 16, 20–21). We are to love our neighbour as ourselves, which also entails doing them no harm (Rom 13:9–10). Generosity to the poor is repeatedly encouraged, as a response to the generosity God has shown us (2 Cor 9:6–15). Christ has broken down barriers of race and culture; all have sinned and in Christ all are equal and we are not to think of ourselves as better than others (Rom 3:23, 10:12; Gal 3:28; James 2:1–9). We are to do good to all people, not just the family of believers (Gal 6:10). We should not neglect hospitality to strangers; sometimes they are angels in disguise! (Heb 13:2) We are to remember those in prison and who are ill treated (recall the concerns raised about treatment of detainees) as if we ourselves are suffering (Heb 13:3), recalling Paul’s imperative to weep with those who weep (Rom 12:15). James goes so far as to say that pure religion involves not only avoiding worldly contamination but looking after orphans and widows in their distress (James 1:27). Many refugees have lost their breadwinner, and family separations at borders should be of grave concern.
How important are nations?
When we examine the arguments against a relatively open immigration policy, and the reasons behind a reluctance to accept large numbers of refugees, particularly into western countries, the general theme that emerges is nationalism. As discussed in the introduction, nationalism prioritises loyalty to the nation and its perceived interests over other individual and group interests. The obvious difference between the post-World War II refugee crisis and the relative acceptance of refugees then as opposed to now, is both quantitative and qualitative. There are almost seven times as many refugees now as then, and they are not European. In determining whether it is appropriate to prioritise a nationalist agenda that seeks to minimise the influx of people of different ethnicities and religions, against the humanitarian and biblical imperatives discussed above, we need to think about the nature and value of nations and “nationalism.” I will stand to be corrected, but I do not think it is possible to provide a biblical defence of nationalism. In fact, the Bible presents an overall negative view of “the nations,” their presumptive autonomy and their demand for allegiance.
Whichever nation we call home, we must remember that it wasn’t ours to start with (especially true of former colonies like Australia and the USA). The earth is God’s. “The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers” (Psa 24:1–2). God created the earth (Gen 1:1). He provides impartially and generously for his creatures, including humans, through his providential care (Neh 9:6; Matt 5:45, 6:26–30; Col 1:17; Heb 1:3). He gave humans custodianship of the earth (Gen 1:26–30; 2:15; Psa 104; Psa115:16) but it remains God’s. God has absolute jurisdiction over the earth and its resources; humans are merely caretakers. God determined the boundaries of the nations, and still does, as well as being ultimately behind the establishment of governments and rulers, whether good or bad (Psa 22:28; 33:10; 47:8; 103:19; Isa 37:16). Throughout history, God has determined who conquers whom, and the rise and fall of empires and their dominions; the behind-the scenes decisions are God’s (Jer 25:9; Ezek 21:21–22). God rules over all kingdoms and gives them to whomever he will (Dan 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21).
Nations, despite their pretensions, are relatively insignificant to God; they rise and fall and are like a mere drop in a bucket (Isa 40:15–17; see also God’s ridicule in Psa 2). The nations of the earth are sometimes described as a tossing, restless sea (Ezek 26:3; Rev 17:15) but God will still that sea and eventually there will be none left (Rev 21:1). Ultimately God will remove all national boundaries and distinctions, destroy all authorities and powers and unite a redeemed humanity under his rule (Psa 146:10; 1 Cor 15:24–25; Rev 11:15). In the meantime, his people are to regard themselves as citizens of heaven (Phil 3:20) rather than any earthly “city.” Whilst we are to respect the rulers God has appointed, both good and bad, and to live according to the laws of the land in as far as they don’t conflict with God’s laws (Rom 13:1–7), our ultimate authority is God, not the rule of the nation in which we reside (Acts 5:29). Therefore, nationalist agendas, including simple fear of dilution of one’s culture, would seem to be an illegitimate reason for overriding God’s imperatives to care for the stranger.
A theology of displaced persons: toward a Christian response
God’s people have often been strangers and pilgrims, temporary dwellers in places he has sent them, and refugees from oppression. Much of this displacement was the direct or indirect result of sin, either individual or collective, and reflects the nature of this fallen world. Adam and Eve were righty exiled from the Garden for their disobedience, because they could no longer be given access to the tree of life in their sinful state (Gen 3:23–24). Nevertheless, the way back to the garden has been “kept,” and the future of redeemed mankind is a paradise and renewed access to the tree of life (Rev 22:1–2). In the meantime, God’s redeemed people are to regard themselves as displaced persons, with no lasting city in this world, as we seek the one to come (Heb 13:14).
“These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city” (Hebrews 11:13–16)
We were all once “strangers,” displaced from our true heavenly home, having no hope. Christ broke down the dividing wall of hostility between us and God; “so then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph 2: 12–19). In the Old Testament, God directly linked the imperative to care for aliens to the Israelites’ experience of slavery and redemption. Here Paul uses the metaphor of the refugee to emphasise our spiritual redemption. It would be a poor way to respond to Christ, who has given us so much, by neglecting the physically displaced. Christ broke down the greater wall, the dividing wall of hostility between us and God; who are we to build walls of hostility against others?
If we, as Christians, take seriously the consistent examples and imperatives of Scripture regarding refugees and other displaced persons, what should be our response? In terms of attitude, we should acknowledge that, without Christ’s love toward us when we were estranged sinners, we would still be spiritual refugees, alienated from God. Care for the stranger is one of several ways in which we reciprocate toward others what God has done for us; part of a broader pattern of expected behaviour (Matt 6:14–15; 10:8; Luke 6:37–38; John 15:12; 1 John 4:19–20).
The refugee motif is a powerful reminder that everything we have comes from God and that we have a responsibility to steward the resources he has given us in practical love to our neighbours, especially the most vulnerable in the world today.
In both the Old and New Testaments, God used the experience of displacement and rescue as the springboard for the imperatives to care for others, to give as we have received. The over 70 million refugees in the world are not going to suddenly disappear. No one person, group, country or league of nations can solve this crisis, because ultimately it is a result of sin and the brokenness of the world. Only Christ can make the new heavens and new earth in which there will be no more suffering; “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away” (Rev 21:4). But even though the certainties that will attend the Master’s return are not yet evident, we must not bury the talent he has given us and simply do nothing (Matt 25:24–30 — and note what follows immediately). We cannot, in this life, stop the conflicts in the Middle East or Africa, rein in the tyrannies of Myanmar or Central America or halt terrorism. We know that God can, and will, address these one day (Rev 11:18). God calls us now to active love and intervention, to do what we can now with what we have. And compared to the meagre resources of 70 million refugees, western Christians have an abundance.
Individually, Christians can
· Become better informed about the refugee crisis, its causes, challenges and the needs of its victims, and not get side-tracked by competing agendas.
· Shut down misinformed comments, slander and lies about immigrants and displaced persons when we hear them; speak the truth in love and not be party to falsehood, scaremongering or scapegoating. Don’t let Christianity be misrepresented as a religion of hatred.
· Promote awareness of the plight of the displaced, and encourage compassion by demonstrating it ourselves.
· Repent, where necessary, of any selfishness, neglect, slander or foolish talking and remember our own redemption with gratitude, as well as “there but for the grace of God go I.”
· Pray for refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants of uncertain status; pray for godly wisdom for governments, for compassion and support, for restraint of evil and for the return of Christ.
· Give generously to support quality refugee programs; give aid and assistance in kind. Donate money, time, skills, resources as appropriate.
· Vote for parties with sound, compassionate and sustainable refugee and displaced persons policies.
Collectively, churches and para-church organisations can
· Be a voice of reason and compassion and advocacy for refugees, asylum seekers and other displaced persons; raise awareness.
· Reject the compromising of biblical principles and Christian compassion for political influence, nationalist concerns or other agendas.
· Contribute money and resources, especially through Christian aid organisations that minister to the displaced.
· Actively welcome and support refugees and immigrants to our church communities and be welcoming, attractive places to reach non-Christian “strangers” for the Gospel.
· Lobby appropriately for political and social change with respect to displaced persons policies; hold governments accountable.
Thank you for reading this. Comments and questions are welcome.
[1] https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/what-is-a-refugee.html [2] https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/figures-at-a-glance.html 19 June 2019 [3] Prima Faciae (Latin) is the actual legal term and means “based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.” [4] https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/asylum-seekers.html [5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/28/migrants-refugees-and-asylum-seekers-whats-the-difference [6] With respect to Australia: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/17/migrants-add-to-australias-wealth-government-report-finds and with respect to the USA: https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/benefits-of-immigration-outweigh-costs.html [7]https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/AustMigration [8] https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement [11] https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/australian-values [12] http://theconversation.com/what-makes-someone-an-illegal-immigrant-108961 [13] https://worldrelief.org/blog/daca-and-dream-act-101?gclid=CjwKCAiAuqHwBRAQEiwAD-zr3b9DsKtITf8ZPo4D51RXR6N6XoHlUvjXEXZn9L7Q0VcFo5JfzOS9EBoC5gIQAvD_BwE [14] http://theconversation.com/what-makes-someone-an-illegal-immigrant-108961 [15] https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/detention-australia-statistics/ 9 Dec 2019. [16] https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/2018-global-trends/ [17] https://www.sbs.com.au/language/english/immigration-australia-s-migration-ceiling-to-remain-unchanged-in-2018-19_2 [18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displaced_persons_camps_in_post-World_War_II_Europe [19] http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/exhibition/objectsthroughtime-history/1945-1965/index.html [20] https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/manus-nauru-senate-2017/ [21] Julie M. Linton, Marsha Griffin, Alan J. Shapiro Pediatrics March 2017, e20170483; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-0483https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/03/09/peds.2017-0483 [22]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy#Refusal_to_accept_asylum_seekers_at_border_crossings [23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769 [24] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD-MblaUZtI [25] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546550600880294 [26] Tertullian, Apology 50 [27] https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/how-many-refugees/
コメント