Recently, the Democratic Chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law held a hearing on an unusual topic: whether Christianity compels policymakers in Washington DC to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants residing in this country.

Surprised by the topic? I know I was. After all, when conservatives make reference to either the Holy Bible or to America’s rich Judeo-Christian heritage, Democrats usually are the first to object! Was this hearing evidence that the liberal/progressive movement in America had suddenly found religion?

"The Democrats at this hearing approached their analysis of the Bible’s laws much the same way as they approach the U.S. Constitution’s provisions: as a living document subject to activist interpretation on behalf of radical policy initiatives."

I think you know the answer to this question.

The Democrats at this hearing approached their analysis of the Bible’s laws much the same way as they approach the U.S. Constitution’s provisions: as a living document subject to activist interpretation on behalf of radical policy initiatives.

Think about it: what was the basic idea that the Democrats who organized this hearing hoped to prove? It was the notion that the only Biblically-acceptable immigration policy is open borders.

Is that true? It certainly doesn’t sound like any version of the Holy Scripture that I’ve read. It certainly doesn’t sound like any version of the scriptures the Israelis (who have built a border security fence and have an active deportation program) have read. And I’m confident it doesn’t match up with your own church’s teachings either.

"The Bible is very clear not only on the subject of borders, but also on the importance of obeying the Rule of Law. Since the Democrats at the hearing greeted these two points with silence, I can only assume that they regarded the following passages of the Bible as “inconvenient truths.”"

How could it? The Bible is very clear not only on the subject of borders, but also on the importance of obeying the Rule of Law. Since the Democrats at the hearing greeted these two points with silence, I can only assume that they regarded the following passages of the Bible as “inconvenient truths.”

For example, take Deuteronomy 32:8. That passage reads: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” How can that possibly be read as an invitation to believe that God remains neutral on the subject of borders? It can’t be. Neither can the passage in Acts 17:26 which says that “God made all nations who live on earth, and he decided when and where every nation would be.” Perhaps this explains why the Democrats at the hearing ignored both passages.

Or how about Jesus’ teaching to Matthew that one should “therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” That is a clear directive to Christ’s followers to respect the rule of man-made law in secular, as opposed to spiritual, settings. Rewarding illegal immigrants with amnesty clearly violates this provision, as it can not possibly be argued that rewarding illegal immigrants for their lawbreaking promotes a respect for man-made immigration laws. Again, the Democrats’ silence on this passage speaks volumes.

"Can you imagine what the Democrats at this hearing would have done had they gotten around to analyzing the Exodus story? Moses would have gone from demanding that Pharaoh free Moses’ people so that they could return to the Promised Land, to demanding that Pharaoh grant a “path to citizenship” that would continue to allow Moses’ people to stay in Egypt in order to build Pharaoh’s temples at below market wages."

I suppose, however, that Jews and Christians throughout America should be glad that in trying to re-interpret the Bible to meet their political needs, the Democrats offered such a superficial view of Old and New Testament teachings. Can you imagine what the Democrats at this hearing would have done had they gotten around to analyzing the Exodus story? Moses would have gone from demanding that Pharaoh free Moses’ people so that they could return to the Promised Land, to demanding that Pharaoh grant a “path to citizenship” that would continue to allow Moses’ people to stay in Egypt in order to build Pharaoh’s temples at below market wages.

Clearly, I don’t think that this is the message that the Bible intended to convey.

So what should conservatives, as defenders of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, do now that the liberals are signaling their willingness to throw their traditional over-heated “violation of church and state” principles overboard in the name of political expediency?

I say we welcome them to a public discussion of the Bible’s meanings. If we do, I believe we will have a very interesting impact on American policy. In the near run, I believe that a fuller discussion of Biblical teachings in the wake of the Democrats’ show hearing would move the illegal immigration debate in a direction that proponents of amnesty never expected. It would further galvanize public opposition to the proposal.

For instance, do the Democrats really relish the idea of being cast as Pontius Pilate? In seeking to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants at a time when unemployment rates are already unacceptably high, can’t the Democrats be said to be “washing their hands” of the negative consequences their economic policies have wrought?

I think so. And the last time I checked my Bible, Pontius Pilate was regarded as anything but a hero.

I’m sure you already knew that. I’m equally sure that if they continue promoting amnesty, the Democrats will learn the same lesson.

Congressman Steve King (R-IA) is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law. He is also a member of St. Martin’s Church in Odebolt, Iowa.