Our guest blogger is Allison Johnson, Campaign Coordinator for Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CCIR) at Sojourners.

Earlier this week, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released two reports, one titled “A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy” and another “No ‘Progress by Pesach’: The Jewish Establishment’s Usurpation of American-Jewish Opinion on Immigration.” It is clear that the anti-immigrant group which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as having “never found any aspect of immigration it likes” is deeply concerned about an emerging trend: people of faith seeking guidance from their respective traditions in grappling with the issue of immigration reform. CIS’ lengthy reports seem to have one goal in mind: to delegitimize the role faith plays for millions of Americans who see their moral values in alignment with just and humane immigration reform.

The author of “A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy” describes the proactive advocacy and involvement of national denominations in the immigration debate, naming the Catholic Church, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Southern Baptist Convention as being “out of touch” with people in the pews. It states:

“Yet such self-described ‘compassion’ among religious elites differs from the perspective of most rank-and-file Christians. The laity generally opposes legalization and supports enforcement of immigration laws.”

Meanwhile, Stephen Steinlight berates “American Jewish leaders” for waging a “counterfeit ‘civil rights’ campaign for illegal aliens,” and proceeds to scold them for not being “better educated, or at least chastened, contemporaries.” Steinlight focuses on criticizing “Progress by Pesach,” a campaign for humane immigration reform launched on behalf of a coalition of Jewish organizations from “various Jewish traditions” which includes the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, National Council of Jewish Women, and Union for Reform Judaism. Though Steinlight himself admits that “every constituent part of the American-Jewish Establishment engaged in domestic public policy signed onto this effort,” he refers to the alliance as “politically correct McCarthyists” with a “a putatively moral premise” that doesn’t resonate with most American Jews.

Quite the contrary, a new report released yesterday by the Center for American Progress points out that “the plight of an immigrant is as old as humanity” and “the response of people of faith remains constant.” The report documents grassroots-led social activism on behalf of faith communities that are neither “coordinated or part of one network.” “They are people who have just become fed up and have reached out to undocumented immigrants because of their faith commitments to caring for the neighbor,” explains former president of Chicago Theological Seminary, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite. Between January and July of this year more than 25,000 mostly “rank-and-file Christians” gathered in churches to call for immigration reform and an end to the separation of immigrant families as part of the Families United Tour. The Interfaith Immigration Coalition, a network of religious groups working on immigration reform, gathered people of faith at 167 events in 133 cities for prayer vigils to protect immigrants and their families and to persuade congressional members to enact comprehensive reform in February alone.

Each person interprets scripture through a particular cultural, historical and social context. It is ingrained in the overarching narrative of the Judeo-Christian story that God’s people are to care for the widow, the orphan and the stranger. The actions of a growing faith-driven movement should demonstrate to the rest of the country that not only are people of faith preaching from the pulpit but are living out the call in Hebrew scriptures:

“The stranger who resides with you shall be as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Leviticus 19:34)

Yesterday afternoon, two Senate Finance Committee staffers directly addressed Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) redundant and misguided claim that Sen. Max Baucus’ (D-MT) health care bill will allow undocumented immigrants who possess stolen Social Security Numbers (SSNs) to game the system and receive health care benefits. Senate Finance Committee Professional Staff Members Tom Klouda and Thomas Barthold decisively dismissed Grassley’s illegitimate concerns:

KLOUDA: We checked to see if there is a concern with identity theft in some of our other health care programs. And we contacted the National Association of Medicaid Fraud units. And they mentioned that there is a minor degree of identity theft in Medicaid, but it’s very small. It’s not one of their main concerns in terms of Medicaid fraud issues…

Some people that we’ve talked to who are experts in identity theft just think that’s unlikely that people would want to enter the system that way and have to maintain the fraud.

GRASSLEY: You know, one instance that you don’t cover is the fact that if you steal a Social Security Number and you have that number you can write and get income information based upon that number…

BARTHOLD: I just want to point out that the IRS would not pay a credit to the same person twice. So if I were to luck out and find someone who is eligible for the credit, and steal their identity, the IRS would only pay that credit once.

Watch it:

Earlier that day, Grassley slammed Baucus’ proposed health care plan for not containing REAL ID requirements or provisions that would force the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Social Security Administration to share information to prevent undocumented immigrants with stolen SSNs from collecting benefits. He also feared that undocumented immigrants might be infiltrating Indian tribes and posing as Native Americans, who will be subject to less stringent verification requirements.

However, Real ID Act’s requirements don’t kick in until 2017 if it’s not repealed at the state or federal-level before then and the IRS is charged with “zealous[ly] protect[ing]” basic confidentiality protections that require that tax returns and tax return information be held in strictest confidence. Rather than wasting time going into the weeds with Grassley, Klouda and Barthold simply pointed out that he should really stop fretting about undocumented immigrants in the first place as it’s not worth stalling health care reform over wedge-issues that aren’t grounded in reality.

There’s an old chestnut about an economist stuck in a deep hole with two other people whose occupation depends on who’s telling the story. But after the other two try to escape in ways appropriate to their jobs, they turn the economist for a solution. The economist replies, “Assume a ladder.” The point of this story (and similar ones involving economists, desert islands, and can openers) is that economists tend to assume things that aren’t actually so.

This timeless joke about the economics profession popped into my head as I was reading Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s leaked Afghanistan assessment. Overall, the assessment makes good recommendations as to what changes the international military effort in Afghanistan needs to make to improve the odds of success. Increased embedding and enhanced partnering with Afghan security forces, taking greater force protection risks to better protect the population, reversing the insurgency’s momentum, and the like will all be important if the Obama administration decides to go forward with McChrystal’s strategy.

But there’s an incredibly important blind spot in the assessment. Like the economist assuming a ladder, the assessment assumes a more effective Afghan government, and what’s more, an Afghan government that wants to be more effective. It’s astonishing that the assessment makes this assumption given the ink it spills detailing the severe problems the Afghan government has delivering security and basic services — not to mention the crisis of legitimacy the August election has exacerbated. To wit:

The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF’s own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government. These problems have alienated large segments of the Afghan population. They do not trust GIRoA [Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan] to provide basic services, such as security, justice, and basic services.

But at the same time:

ISAF’s center of gravity is the will and ability to provide for the needs of the population ‘by, with, and through’ the Afghan government. A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency; the insurgency in Afghanistan requires an Afghan solution. This is their war and, in the end, ISAF’s competency will prove less decisive than GIRoA’s; eventual success requires capable Afghan governance capabilities and security forces. [Emphasis added.]

What these two statements say to me is that even if McChrystal gets all the resources he asks for, (which probably won’t be enough anyway) and even if the ISAF executes the best counterinsurgency campaign in history, it won’t matter much unless the Afghan government can make a noticeable improvement in its ability to govern the country on a minimally satisfactory basis. And that objective in and of itself requires that the Afghan government has the desire and willingness to make an effort at improving the way it operates.

As Spencer Ackerman asked on Monday, “Is a government that was willing to return itself to power by stealing an election really willing to enact the kind of good-government reforms that would be necessary to mitigate this [insurgent] threat?” This question is exactly the one the Obama administration needs to answer before giving General McChrystal the 40,000 troops he’s apparently going to ask for.

It’s also why, contra Eliot Cohen, it’s good to see that there’s still a healthy debate going on in the Obama administration. Vice President Biden has taken the lead in formulating an alternative, and so far President Obama has not committed one way or another. The decision to send more troops to Afghanistan is the biggest foreign policy decision the Obama administration has had to make so far, and it is entirely appropriate and correct not to rush it.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) told the Politico that President Obama doesn’t seem to be a “true friend” of Israel. When you think about it, it’s a pretty odd charge for an American legislator to be making about a foreign country. What the congressman from Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A should be asking is whether Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is a true friend of America.

Given Netanyahu’s continuing intransigence on settlements, President Obama’s decision to move past the U.S. request for a settlement freeze in order to begin outlining a final status agreement is the right one. But it’s still very much worth highlighting how central Israel’s intransigence is to the current difficulties — and how shameful it is that so many American neoconservatives have been openly supporting this intransigence against the Obama administration’s attempts to hold Israel to its past commitments on settlements.

In light of the neocon nervous breakdown over Obama’s canceling of the Eastern European missile defense program, which the neocons claim (as they do about pretty much everything) shows weakness and damages U.S. credibility, it’s pretty interesting that we’ve never heard a peep from them about the damage to U.S. credibility by relentless Israeli settlement building in the face of repeated U.S. requests to stop. Not only have successive Israeli governments continued to construct these illegal colonies, they have often done so in ways that seem calculated to humiliate the United States, such as announcing new construction moments after high-level U.S. diplomatic visits.

In his speech to the United Nations today, President Obama strongly reiterated the U.S. commitment to a secure Israel and Palestine, but also repeated that the U.S., like the rest of the world, “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

Marc Lynch is right to point out, in response to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s claim that “Israel is interested in the peace process led by Obama, based on an agreement with the Palestinians,” that an Israel which actually wanted such a process “would seek to work with the administration rather than seeking every possible opportunity to poke fingers in the administration’s eyes.” This should be of real concern for anyone who is genuinely concerned about U.S. credibility. Yet it has never seemed to bother the neocons.