‘Scared of crossing the border’: The Arizona farmers who rely on Mexican workers

Biblical Context

The treatment of foreign agricultural workers is directly connected to biblical commands about justice and human dignity. Leviticus 19:33–34 instructs Israel not to mistreat the foreigner living among them and to love that person as a neighbor. The passage does not establish a modern visa system, but it supplies a clear moral standard for how migrant laborers should be treated, especially when they are economically important yet politically vulnerable. Deuteronomy 24:14–15 specifically addresses withholding or delaying the wages of hired workers, warning that their livelihood may depend on timely payment. The article does not allege that Yuma farmers are withholding wages; it reports delayed visas that prevented workers from arriving and caused crops to spoil. The connection is therefore a related concern about workers’ ability to obtain lawful employment and receive the fruits of their labor, not a claim that the biblical prohibition has been violated. James 5:4 condemns employers who fail to pay laborers fairly, emphasizing God’s awareness of economic injustice. Boelts says his workers are paid above minimum wage and sometimes more than $20 per hour, but the article does not independently assess wages, housing, transportation, or working conditions across the region. Scripture therefore calls for scrutiny of those obligations without proving that the farms described are exploiting workers. Genesis 2:15 presents cultivation and care of the land as responsibilities entrusted to humanity. Yuma’s dependence on Colorado River irrigation, together with concern that the river may not sustain current allocations, gives this stewardship principle a concrete application. The passage does not prescribe a particular water-allocation policy, but it supports careful, responsible management of scarce resources. Government authority also has a limited relevant connection in Romans 13:1–4: public authorities are described as having responsibility to restrain wrongdoing and pursue public order. That principle can illuminate the competing aims of border security, lawful employment, and safe commerce, but it does not endorse any particular administration or immigration policy.