Given that I argue against man-made immigration laws, it might surprise some readers to learn that I affirm the idea that a people ought to seek to preserve their ethnicity. Furthermore, I largely agree with Stephen Wolfe’s conception of ethnicity – a group of people who share language, values, history, place, memory, and space. Contrary to claims that he is a “racist,” Wolfe writes: “The ties of blood do not directly establish the boundaries of one’s ethnicity. Rather, one has ethnic ties of affection because one’s kin conducted life with other kin in the same place” (The Case for Christian Nationalism, p. 139). Based on this understanding of ethnicity, Wolfe affirms that “intermarriage over time” can create bonds of affection and integrate people into the spouse’s ethnicity. Ethnicity is indeed fluid and changes over time, but it remains a tangible reality, even if it cannot be reduced to a DNA test.
Ethnicity and culture are interconnected, with ethnicity pertaining to the people and culture referring to the things that connect those individuals/families. While I will delve deeper into the topics of ethnicity and culture (particularly in relation to non-legislative theonomy) in my forthcoming book, Love Thy Countrymen, I would like to highlight one practical implication regarding how man-made law can hinder the preservation of ethnicity.
Let’s briefly examine one of the most significant aspects of a people: their language. Even though I appreciate other languages (my wife and in-laws are fluent in Spanish) I would like my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to grow up in a land where English is spoken. I cherish the rich history of the English language, including the English translations of the Bible, the English literature I learned to love from my mother (C.S. Lewis, T.H. White, etc.), and the rich English hymns of the Christian faith that I sing with my family. While it is not my primary desire for my descendants (their faith is more important than their language), given the choice, I would prefer they speak English rather than Urdu – it would also make it easier for them to read the books I have written, thus providing a connection to their past. (Personally, I value the fact that I can read the writings of my great-great-grandfather, the minister A.J.K. Behrends, in the language he wrote in.) If the English language fades away, it is true that a new language will arise and become important to a future people. However, that day is not today, and I am not obligated to hasten the demise of my mother tongue. Therefore, I would like to see English have a long-lasting presence in this land.
At this point, someone might be thinking, “Okay, so why not beef up the immigration laws to keep out all these non-English speakers?” The problem with that idea is that the Bible does not authorize the creation of new laws (Deut. 4:2). God has provided us with all that we need for justice (Micah 6:8); we do not need new legislation. The Bible authorizes magistrates to adjudicate, not legislate. (For more on God’s structure for civil society, see Future of Christendom’s new book, Redeemed by Justice.) Furthermore, forbidding something that God has not forbidden (e.g., travel) will have unintended negative consequences, including preventing the righteous from providing employment to other people, ultimately hindering the native’s ability to freely love God and love his neighbor.
So, how can we preserve our language (and other aspects of our ethnicity) if we cannot create and enforce immigration laws? This question reveals the extent to which our thinking has been influenced by statism. We have come to accept that the only way to solve the majority of the problems facing us as a people is through legislation.
This mindset is doubly devastating.
First, it leads us to eschew creativity and a proactive outlook on how to build and preserve our culture. We assume that the “state” with its man-made legislation is the solution, and we never realize our potential as a people. Second, it opens the door for legislation to be used against a people as they seek to preserve their ethnicity.
For the sake of this article, I will focus on the latter point and provide some comments on how legislation can be used against a people as they seek to preserve their ethnicity.
Biblical law does not authorize the magistrate to punish someone for traveling to a new place, nor does it authorize the magistrate to punish someone for refusing to hire someone who has just arrived in a new place. Yes, there are biblical principles that apply to how people treat foreigners and sojourners. No injustice is to be done to these people. Nevertheless, a person is free to hire or not hire any newcomer as he sees fit, based on his own judgment and in accordance with biblical principles. (Many times, the arrival of newcomers provides a benefit to the native and the newcomer in the provision of cheaper labor.) Justice does not require any adjudication here.
But if a people do not desire a foreign language to gain a foothold in their land, they can voluntarily (without committing any injustice) refrain from employing anyone who refuses to learn the common tongue. They can apply the colloquial phrase to their business enterprises: “Welcome to America, Now Speak English.” (If they wish, they can also provide English-speaking courses for their employees to help them assimilate.) This may or may not be a strategy worth employing. However, my point here is this: If a people desired to pursue this strategy, there is one thing standing in their way. You guessed it: man-made law.
The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, which means that individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) are also protected under this law. Consequently, these individuals must be provided with information and services in their preferred language, such as Spanish or…Urdu. This man-made law generally only applies to larger employers, but it represents the fact that a system of man-made law undermines a people’s preservation of their ethnicity – specifically their desire to preserve their language. Not only does this law exist, but there are dozens of other federal codes and programs centered around providing accessibility to foreign languages, decreasing the need for incoming people to assimilate and learn the current language.
For example, “Section 203 [of the Voting Rights Act] targets those language minorities that have suffered a history of exclusion from the political process: Spanish, Asian, Native American, and Alaskan Native. The Census Bureau identifies specific language groups for specific jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, two or more language minority groups are present in numbers sufficient to trigger the Section 203 requirements” (justice.gov). The Affordable Care Act also contains “language access provisions.” (There are also various state-level laws related to language accessibility.)
Keep in mind, all of these provisions require infrastructure (bureaucrats, website management, programs, etc.) to maintain. Not only is the man-made system discouraging assimilation, but it is doing so by using the money (stolen via forced taxation) of the very people who would prefer to preserve their language.
In the end, there is no need to resort to man-made law to preserve our culture. Worse, legislation is often used to undermine attempts at cultural preservation! Let’s seek to preserve our ethnicity, but let’s do it without rejecting God’s Law and God’s civil structure. Attempts to preserve our ethnicity by abandoning justice (as defined by God’s Law) will only prove disastrous, leaving our children with further man-made strictures that will make it harder for them to leave a cultural legacy for their own children.
