Dasar Alkitab dalam hal imigrasi

Photo by Stephen Leonardi (Pexels)

Pertanyaan:
Mengapa ada orang Kristen (seperti misalnya di USA bagian selatan) yang menggunakan ayat alkitab sebagai dasar keyakinan mereka yang menolak imigran, orang dengan warna kulit lain, dst? Bukankah semua umat kristen di dunia menggunakan firman tuhan yang sama? Apakah ini merupakan masalah tafsiran ayat, atau masalah lain? saya tertarik untuk mengetahui masalah ini lebih dalam.

Jawaban:

1. Etika absolut yang tidak berkonflik (Non-conflicting absolutism / NCA).

   Keyakinan bahwa tidak akan ada konflik di dalam mengambil keputusan karena Tuhan yang akan mengurus segala konsekuensi. Misalnya

   1. Kalau anak imigran dipisahkan, Tuhan yang akan menjaga anak tersebut
   2. Kalau anak imigran diberi ijin tinggal, Tuhan yang akan menjaga negara dari populasi imigran yang terlalu banyak

2. Etika absolut yang berkonflik (conflicting absolutism / CA).

   Keyakinan bahwa di dalam dunia kita akan menghadapi konflik di dalam mengambil keputusan. Jadi kita harus minta ampun untuk keputusan yang berakibat buruk, tapi Tuhan dalam anugrahnya akan fokus ke ketaatan yang ditunjukkan. Misalnya

   1. Kalau anak imigran dipisahkan, minta ampun untuk akibat ini, tapi fokus pada ketaatan pada hukum.
   2. Kalau anak imigran diberi ijin tinggal, dan dampaknya populasi imigran melonjak tidak terkendali, minta ampun utk akibat ini. Tapi fokus pada kasih kepada para imigran.
3. Etika absolut bertingkat (graded absolutism / GA). Keyakinan bahwa ada hukum yang lebih tinggi tingkatannya dari yang lain misalnya lebih baik menyelamatkan nyawa dengan kebohongan daripada membiarkan ada yang mati karena kejujuran. Dalam hal ini ada dua sub pendekatan yakni kejahatan yang lebih kecil (lesser evil) atau kebaikan yang lebih besar (greater good). Akan ada banyak perdebatan apakah memisahkan anak atau memberikan ijin tinggal yang lebih baik atau buruk.

1. Kita bisa memberikan penilaian kita, namun tetap harus ingat bahwa kita tidak ada disana dan tidak perlu mengambil keputusan apapun. Karena apapun keputusan yang diambil tidak ada dampaknya untuk kita. Umumnya, kalau ada dampak untuk kita, yang kita pikirkan adalah keuntungan diri. Kita menolak yang merugikan kita, menerima yang menguntungkan kita. Disini adalah tantangan untuk setiap dari kita memikirkan, apa yang kira-kira sejauh kita berpikir, akan paling berkenan kepada Tuhan?
2. Dalam lingkup pengaruh kita (sphere of influence), kita bisa bertanya apakah yang sedang kita kerjakan untuk membangun kondisi masyarakat yang berkenan di hadapan Tuhan? Karena disinilah kita akan bergumul untuk mengambil langkah demi langkah dalam konteks realita yang ada untuk meningkatkan kondisi tertentu. Misalnya, kita bisa melihat kebijakan pemerintah dan kondisi para pekerja imigran disini seperti para pramuwisma dengan memperhatikan prinsip ketaatan pada hukum negara (Rom 13:1-7) maupun mengasihi sesama (Rom 13:8-10)

Question:

Why are there some Christians (for example, in the southern United States) who use Bible verses as the basis of their belief to reject immigrants or people of other skin colors? Don’t all Christians around the world use the same Word of God? Is this a problem of interpretation, or something else? I’m interested to understand this issue more deeply.

Answer:

I’m not entirely sure which Bible verses are used as the basis for rejecting immigrants or people of other races, or in what context these verses are applied.

However, let’s take an example: Jeff Sessions, who cited Romans 13 to justify separating immigrant children from their parents. The principle that Sessions emphasized was obedience to government and law (Romans 13:1–7). According to this view, illegal immigration cannot be tolerated — anyone entering the United States must do so legally.

In this case, the children of immigrants were smuggled into the U.S. by parents who already had legal residency.
If we apply this to the Singapore context: suppose a Work Permit or S-Pass holder, who is not allowed to bring family members, secretly brings in a child due to poverty or safety concerns. Then we can think of two questions:

1. What would the Singapore government do?

2. What should the Work Permit or S-Pass holder do if they want to be with their child?

Those who criticized Jeff Sessions argued that his interpretation was incorrect — a form of “proof-texting.” They pointed out the broader context of Romans 13: Paul’s exhortation for the church to be good citizens as far as possible, but not to the point of blind obedience, especially in matters that conflict with worshiping God (e.g., emperor worship). The larger emphasis of the passage is living in love toward others (Romans 13:8–10).

In this situation, that principle connects to refugees or asylum seekers of darker skin who come to America fleeing war or crime in their home countries. Other verses also call Christians to be kind to foreigners, widows, and orphans (see Exodus 22:21; Deuteronomy 10:17–18; Hebrews 13:2).

Both sides use the Bible as the foundation for what they believe should be done. In principle, both are appealing to biblical truths. So where does the real problem lie?
In my limited attempt to simplify this complex issue, I think it reflects the reality of moral dilemmas we face in life. When making decisions amid such dilemmas, there are at least three ethical approaches:

1. Non-conflicting absolutism (NCA)

The belief that moral principles never truly conflict because God will take care of all consequences.
Examples:

• If immigrant children are separated, God will take care of them.

• If immigrant children are allowed to stay, God will take care of the country from overpopulation.

2. Conflicting absolutism (CA)

The belief that in this fallen world, we inevitably face moral conflicts. We must then seek forgiveness for the negative consequences of our decisions, while God focuses on our obedience.
Examples:

• If the children are separated, ask forgiveness for the harm caused, but focus on obedience to the law.

• If the children are allowed to stay and this causes a surge of immigration, ask forgiveness for that consequence, but focus on showing love to the immigrants.

3. Graded absolutism (GA)

The belief that some moral laws are higher than others — for example, it is better to save a life through a lie than to let someone die in the name of honesty.
This can be viewed as the “lesser evil” or “greater good” approach.
There will be much debate over whether separating the children or granting them residence is the lesser evil or the greater good.

Assuming both Jeff Sessions and his opponents are sincere Christians wrestling with Scripture (though I could be wrong), within their human limitations, they are each striving to fulfill what they perceive as God’s calling. Whatever decision is made, some will support it, and others will oppose it.

What does this mean for us, Christians in Singapore?

We may form our own opinions, but we must remember that we are not in that situation and do not have to make those decisions. Whatever decision they make has no direct consequence for us.

Usually, when something affects us, our thinking is self-interested: we reject what harms us and accept what benefits us. The real challenge for each of us is to think — what would be most pleasing to God?

Within our own sphere of influence, we can ask: What are we doing to help build a society that honors God?
This is where we struggle to take small, practical steps in our real context.

For example, in observing government policies and the situation of migrant workers here — such as domestic helpers — we can reflect on both the principle of obedience to governing authorities (Romans 13:1–7) and the principle of loving our neighbor (Romans 13:8–10).

May this answer help you think through the moral dilemmas involved in applying God’s Word.
(VL)