According to The Guardian, thousands of pro-immigration activists from across the United States will flock to Washington DC on 21 March to demand that President Obama and Congress pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2010. Mainline Catholics and Protestants who have long defended the rights of illegal aliens plan to be front and centre, as they have been for years. But marching alongside them this year will be some fresh religious faces: evangelical Christians.

Last October, the conservative-leaning National Association of Evangelicals (“NAE”), which represents some 30 million evangelical Christians, passed a resolution at its annual meeting in support of comprehensive immigration reform. The resolution, which received little notice outside of religious circles, produced shockwaves among US conservatives who frequently look to Christian evangelicals for political support, but who are still wary of embracing immigration reform as a conservative-led cause.

Most evangelical Christians, including most NAE members, backed George W Bush for President in 2000 and 2004. Even so, when Bush pushed for comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, the NAE found itself too internally divided over the issue to take a public stand, and Bush’s proposed legislation suffered a crushing defeat.

What happened to change the NAE’s mind? NAE leaders say that continued “theological reflection” on the Christian concept of “witness” has led its 40-member denominations, including its largest group, the 3 million member Assemblies of God, to recognize the need for greater clarity and purpose in its national policy views. A similar process has led the NAE to issue policy statements on climate change, and to announce its support for congressional legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

But another key factor is organizational: Hispanic evangelicals, whose ranks are steadily growing, have been actively lobbying the NAE to support immigration reform as a part of a broader campaign to make evangelical churches more attentive to the faith needs of their Hispanic members – in part, by promoting more Hispanic ministers but also by developing more culturally attuned models for worship and outreach.

A similar trend is underway in the US Catholic church, which remains home to 70% of Hispanics. The nation’s powerful Roman Catholic Bishops haven’t needed a new growth trend to convince them to embrace Hispanics or immigrants. But with the expanding Hispanic presence – an estimated 40% of the US Catholic church is now of Latino origin – the Bishops devote almost as much policy attention to immigration as they do their most visible concern, abortion.

The evangelical swing on immigration – and climate change – is also influencing secular leaders like the Republican senator Lindsey Graham, whose views on these issues largely dovetail with those of the NAE. Graham has replaced John McCain as the GOP’s leading moderate voice on immigration, and he’s currently working closely with Senate Democrats to get a reform bill passed in 2010.

Another recent “convert” on immigration is Gary Bauer, who served as President Reagan’s chief domestic policy advisor went on to found the Family Research Council, one of Washington’s most respected Christian pro-life organisations. Last month Bauer came out in favour of a phased legalisation programme that would tie green card processing for illegal aliens to demonstrated improvements in border and workplace enforcement. Dan Stein, president of the rightwing Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, which opposes an “amnesty” of any kind, recently branded Graham and Bauer “traitors”.

For President Obama, the evangelical shift on immigration is especially welcome news. Last week he suggested to immigration advocates gathered at the White House that he may still push for comprehensive reform in 2010, even in the face of Republican opposition. It’s a dicey move, but one largely prompted by Democratic fears of an erosion of Latino electoral support. The NAE’s endorsement of immigration reform legislation, and its active lobbying on the Hill, could be just what Obama needs to cover his right flank.

The full article is available here.