By Zach Englehart, SD, Constitutional Law Student, December 1, 2006
The current controversy and contentious debate over the illegal immigration dilemma in America is the direct result of the substantial consequences of the unprecedented growth and expansion of legal positivism, a philosophy of law which respects the personal autonomy without restrictions on the moral behavior of the individual. This particular element of law, which, in all reality, is no law at all but a mere pretext, has significantly contributed to our immigration debate, whether we should confer automatic citizenship on illegal immigrants or whether the dilemma can conclusively be resolved by strict boarder security measures and the enforcement of current and legitimate statutory regulations.
The purpose of the Biblical Law is clear: Where a particular provision is transgressed and trumped by individual action, the transgressor must receive lawful punishment required by law. The Law necessarily defines the sphere of right and wrong, what is righteousness and unrighteousness in the sight of God. The principles of this higher, fixed law subsequently entails the divine definition of moral and immoral behavior, and provides sufficient means to comprehend, most importantly, the direction which all Christian should follow. It is, then, the oppression of man’s perverse and naturally immoral constitution, placing our action under divine check.
For example, homosexuality is clearly and expressly prohibited by the Law and prescribes only one marital agreement: the mutual relationship between one man and one woman through permanent monogamy.
Man, because he rejects the absolute truth of the divinely inspired and authoritative word of God, necessarily adheres to a contrary philosophy of law. Instead of law being a means of punishment for immoral circumstances and behavior as the Bible commands, man’s philosophy of a legal order is not governed by a higher absolute standard but rather by the relative, unpredictable and unfixed standards man institutes for his personal governance. Humanist law lacks an absolute, fixed and unchanging standard because it believes that all morals are subject to personal definition. It is thus a law in which personal subjective preferences concerning every element of life are governed by man himself and his self-law.
This philosophy of law propagates and encourages a pragmatic and relative legal order governed by nothing except what is conceived to be true and moral by man. The principles of secular humanist law are established on the pedestal of self-asserted spheres of morality, subject to determination, and thus interpretation, by man’s definition of correct moral behavior. The implementation of this philosophy by the state is none other than tyranny and oppression, because no limitations exist to govern its jurisdiction and authority.
The results of humanist law on this country have been very significant and will someday take precedent over the Constitution and the fundamental principles it implements. The recipe of freedom, liberty and representative self-government will diminish. But, most importantly, the Biblical foundations which wove the intricate fabric of the American constitutional system will similarly diminish and result in the direct contradiction of original constitutional values. The Founders of this country wanted the relevance of the authoritative Word of God to be implemented and employed to govern our culture according to the moral precepts of the Bible. The primary goal of humanists is to destroy these Biblical roots embedded in our constitutional heritage and instituted the system of self-law and supremacy of the state. Unfortunately, humanists are succeeding through many decisions and decrees by the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with morality and religion, demonstrating that efforts to uproot our cultural values and establish humanist precepts is a serious threat to America.
But how does the illegal immigration controversy substantially relate and reflect the fundamental principles and maxims of humanist positive, pragmatic and relative legal institutional and individual law?
The primary premise of the immigration debate can be summed in two simple statements: whether legal citizenship should be conferred upon all current illegal residence, or whether we should secure our border, therefore impede the present flow of illegal immigrants to the U.S., and enforce our current immigration laws.
Yet there is more to this issue. The entire premise of the debate is whether we will change valid statutory commands to adapt to the needs of these people or whether those valid commands will be implemented and enforced, in similar fashion of the Biblical Law mandating that punishment must inevitable be the result of disobedience violative of express Biblical statutory commands. Humanist positive law, however, reflects the principles of statutory mutations, meaning that law is congruous and transforms, by mutational evolution, to the changing needs of society. Law, therefore, is viewed positively rather then negatively. When we relinquish and repudiate the intent of law, which is to punish evil and discriminate against those acting in disobedience, law has no other course then to reflect the morals, philosophies and ideologies of the people.
We cannot, and must not, reflect the principles and virtues of humanist law to resolve the illegal immigration debate. Because it violates the Biblical requirement of the law, and the means in which God-ordained government must implement punishment to lawbreakers and evildoers, Congress must abstain from its current proposal. If Congress approves and ratifies this piece of immigration legislation, we would be rewarding unrighteousness at the sake of righteousness. Law is intended to protect godly, law-abiding citizens, and government must not tolerate the actions and disobedience of unrighteousness. Ponder and assimilate the warnings of R. J. Rushdoony is his Institutes of Biblical Law: “A society which tolerates penalties against itself and against its law-abiding citizens is a dangerous and a dying society.” This is precisely why we must stand up and emphatically oppose Congress’ proposal of automatic citizenship to law transgressors. Immoral behavior must not be tolerated under our constitutional system.
