The Christian realist embraces the Rawlsian perspective that the international peace and justice can only be advanced through well-governed societies. Mark Amstutz, a Political Science professor, in his article “Two Theories of Immigration” states, “the foundation of a humane global order is the stability provided by nations that take care of their own people and respect the sovereignty of other nations” (Amstutz 5). From this, one gathers that the position of the Christian realist is that a state’s true responsibility is to its people always and not to the stranger. With the brokenness of the stranger and the potential to disrupt a society, there is the valid need to keep the stranger out and this brokenness offers justification for the Christian …show more content…
While there might be a greater gain in maintaining the unit of a nation community, which promotes stability, the Christian is called to risk it by welcoming the stranger. The Christian realist would argue that it is not a case of not caring for the stranger, or even be welcoming to the stranger, but it is important to take a trifecta into consideration—the theological realm, which is caring for the stranger at all expenses, the moral realm, which is doing what is right, and the political realm, which is examining the political implication/impact on the society resulting from the way in which the migrant is treated. This conflating of these three distinct principles causes the Christian Realist’s understanding of the value of humans, being above all to be clouded with the legitimate political authority of a state. From my understanding, the realist is guided by the question of what are the benefits and drawbacks for the state if it should open its border to an inflow of migrants. If it is seen that the impact is probably negative for the state, then he or she would openly accept “the second best-goal of achieving limitation and balance” (Romero