The protests keep rising even though 70% of Arizonans and 60% of Americans are in favor of the new law that instructs the local police to enforce federal immigration laws if the need arises. A growing list of people from the stupid to the sublime are calling for a "boycott" of Arizona. The stupid ones are the Arizonans like U.S. Rep. Raul M. Grijalva and others within the state. "Please, please, cut my throat to stop this law!" What are you thinking? I guess it's not too surprising that Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, would protest the law, but it's still not too bright to call it "the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law" when there is nothing in the law against immigration and, apparently, it isn't entirely useless.
And the precedent is set. If Sacramento or Los Angeles or Austin or Denver doesn't like the laws of another city or state, the right thing to do is to act to destroy that city or state economically. "Boycott!!" No local government, be it city or state, should be allowed to pass laws that are not appreciated by everyone in the country. What is wrong with you, Arizona??! So, here's the deal. Either violate the legislators and the voters and the public opinion or die a sure economic death ... your call.
Of course, the grand hypocrite of this pile of complaints is Mexico's president, Felipe Calderón. It's wrong! It's racist! He said it "opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement." This while his country is known for some of the most corrupt law enforcement organizations and while his country has some of the more strict laws against illegal immigration. In fact, here's what I found for some of the rules of some of the countries on the topic:
Mexico: An illegal immigrant caught can be fined $450 and deported, and if they’re caught entering illegally a second time, they can spend 10 years in prison. Furthermore, local Mexican police must assist the Federales in apprehending illegal immigrants, just like the Arizona law requires. (Of course, it's only "intolerance, hate, discrimination" if it's done outside of Mexico.) (On a side note, it’s illegal in Mexico for non-citizens to protest government actions.)
China: Can officially result in a fine or incarceration for up to 10 days followed by deportation, but often results in the offender being charged with spying.
North Korea: Minimum 8 years in jail, longer if the charge is spying.
Italy: $13,000 fine. If you can't pay, you stay and work it off.
France: $5000 fine, a year in prison, or both.
Great Britain: 10,000£ fine. If you can't pay, you stay and work it off.
United States: Employment with greatly decreased tax loads, money to send home, medical coverage, education, and a loud group of defenders. Drive without a license or insurance. Access to public housing, unemployment benefits, welfare, and workers compensation. If arrested for a crime, they often receive suspended sentences so they can be deported. Worst case, it seems, would be free transportation home.
Dirty, rotten, racist Americans ...
What we should do is adopt Argentine laws for immigration. Their law? Anyone who wants to can live there legally. Oh, sure, they have some undocumented aliens, but no illegal aliens. That's good! Since President Obama has come up with all sorts of new funds to pay for health care and bailouts, I'm sure he can come up with more funds to pay for whoever else wants to live here. And I don't think we need to worry about that whole pesky problem of Nazi war criminals living in our country like they were happy to do in Argentina. After all, why would criminals want to live here? And, hey, wouldn't that make terrorists like us much more? Well, I'm sure it would ... one way or another ...
25 comments:
What we are now witnessing in Phoenix is nothing short of thuggery. I would venture to say that none of these angry Lewinsky-esk slur slinging demonstrators would also scream "down with democracy", but by their actions that is exactly what they are protesting against.
What we should do is adopt Argentine laws for immigration. Their law? Anyone who wants to can live there legally.
Oh? You mean like God's command to God's people in the bible? That IS pretty stupid...
Dan: "nothing short of thuggery"
That's certainly the way it appears to me. "You will acquiesce to our point of view or you will suffer the consequences."
Dan Trabue: "You mean like God's command to God's people in the bible?"
Since we're talking here about the U.S. government (not the Church), I have to admit that this is a startling development coming from you. Then it is your position that the U.S. government ought to adopt the laws of the Old Testament? Interesting. Wouldn't have expected it from you. (Of course, if you are not suggesting a wholesale return to the Old Testament laws, you'll have to offer a rationale as to why we ought to adopt one law but not adopt the other Old Testament laws.)
By the way, I wonder if you could point out the biblical references to immigration rules. I see rules, for instance, about how to treat the foreign slaves you have, but I'm not sure I find rules about who to allow in and that sort of thing. I do find rules that allow foreigners who have converted to belief in YHWH to live among them. And I do find rules demanding a separation of God's people from those who are not God's people. I even find rules regarding a monarchy. Is that the kind of thing you're calling for?
To others interested in the question, "What does the Bible say about immigration?" ...
James Hoffmeier is a professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He wrote a book titled The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible that examined what the Bible has to say about our immigration crisis. He says, "There are three relevant terms used in Hebrew (ger, zar, nekhar). Different English translations render the words differently. The TNIV and NLT render them all as 'foreigner.' That is misleading and incorrect.
Zar and nekhar indeed refer to foreigners or visitors, people passing through a foreign land.
Ger or the verb gwr, which together occur more than 160 times in the OT, refer to foreign residents who live in another land with the permission of a host. A good example of this is found in Genesis when Joseph asks permission of pharaoh for his family to move to Egypt (Gen. 45:16-18). When they arrived, the brothers asked pharaoh if they could sojourn in the land (Gen. 47:1-4), and Pharaoh allotted them a section of the land of Goshen or Rameses (Gen. 47:5-7).
The law is clear that ger is not to be oppressed, but to receive equal justice, and have access to the social support system of ancient Israel. And there was a provision for religious inclusion, but they were also obligated to live in accordance with the laws just like the Israelites.
The Law does not, however, extend to the zar and nekhar such benefits and services. From this we can conclude that ger was viewed as a legal alien.
The mistake of some well-meaning Christians is to apply the biblical laws for the ger to illegal aliens in American even though they do not fit the biblical legal and social definition."
See more on the interview here. Another interesting article on the Bible and immigration can be found here.
If you're open to an answer from me regarding your immigration question...
Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Ex 22
Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.
Ex 23
Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God...
When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Lev 19
When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.
Lev 23
If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.
Lev 25
The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.
Num 15
And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien.
Deut 1
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. God defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.
Deut 10
At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
Deut 14
Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns...
Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge...
When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow.
Deut 24
[cont'd]
When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. Then say to the LORD your God: "I have removed from my house the sacred portion and have given it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, according to all you commanded. I have not turned aside from your commands nor have I forgotten any of them."
Deut 26
Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow.
Deut 27
The LORD watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.
Psalm 146
If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place
Jer 7
This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
Jer 22
See how each of the princes of Israel who are in you uses his power to shed blood. In you they have treated father and mother with contempt; in you they have oppressed the alien and mistreated the fatherless and the widow. You have despised my holy things and desecrated my Sabbaths...
The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying them justice.
Eze 22
[God talking about dividing the land in which Israel will settle...]
You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children.
You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe the alien settles, there you are to give him his inheritance
Eze 47
Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor.
Zec 7
"So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me," says the LORD Almighty.
Mal 3
...For example.
Over and over and over and over, some simple expectations are placed upon Israel about how they treat foreigners...
1. Do not oppress or mistreat them.
2. Israel was to welcome them and treat them as "one of [their own] native born." (at least the ones who wished to stay and be part of Israel - and they were expected to obey the Israeli laws, as well, to be sure)
3. Israel was to provide food, resources, even land! for them so that they "continue to live among" them (again, at least for the ones who wished to continue to live amongst them).
Our treatment of foreigners (along with the poor, etc) is even tied to curses and promises - those who mistreat, fail to welcome, oppress the poor and alien will be cursed and those who treat them with justice and welcome will be rewarded "Then I will let you live in this place..."
These even appear to be rules that are specifically a "lasting ordinance for generations to come..." as opposed to some temporary idea.
I'm not sure that we can justify biblically criminalizing immigration. There is no biblical support for such an idea that I see. Instead, the repeated and repeated and repeated idea is that we are to welcome - and even provide for - foreigners, specifically poor foreigners.
Now, as you know, I'm not suggesting we ought to implement every law in the OT as a modern law. But, FOR CHRISTIANS and others who hold fast to biblical teachings, I would think there would be at the very least, a strong wariness to implementing laws that seem SO UTTERLY contrary to such a large portion of the Bible.
And I'm aware of ger, zar, etc. However, where you conclude...
The Law does not, however, extend to the zar and nekhar such benefits and services. From this we can conclude that ger was viewed as a legal alien.
I'm not sure that this is a safe biblical conclusion. See the Bible Encyclopedia entry on this topic. Concluding that ger is equivalent to our modern notion of "legal alien" seems to be imposing modern views on OT notions.
Consider this: It is certainly clear that God's people were to provide for and treat with justice the poor. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that this is suggesting ONLY a certain subset of "the poor" like "legal immigrants" or only Israelis. No. God's people are to treat the poor as we would treat God's own self. "What you've done for the least of these, my children..." Jesus tells us.
If a poor Mexican has been wholly unable to feed his family in Mexico (due at least in part to US policy) and he comes here seeking only to work to be able to save his family from starvation, do you really think God criminalizes such behavior?
What would you do, Stan, if you found out your co-worker was an undocumented Mexican who had, in fact, been unable to feed his family at home. He WANTS to be home with them - he has no intention of staying in the US, he just is trying to keep his family from starving. He USED to have his own farm until US policy allowed the flooding of their local market with cheap (ie, subsidized) US food and he lost his farm. He is just trying to keep his family alive.
What would you do in that case, Stan?
Myself, if it were a law (as I believe Arizona's new law is like) that required me to turn him in or face charges myself, I would break the law, as I believe it is an unjust law and I would have to obey God, rather than man.
What would you do?
Okay, so there is no distinction -- no allowable distinction -- in your version of your Bible that will allow for "legal" aliens versus visitors. Or, to put it another way, James Hoffmeier, professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, is full of hooey and no one can possibly be right that makes such a suggestion. Okay. We're clear. (This would be a key factor in your repeated references to "aliens". That is, if the "aliens" references you sited were ger and not the other two words, then we're talking about ensuring legal rights for legal aliens ... with which we all agree.) But, as we've determined, you consider Dr. Hoffmeier unreliable.
(Important note: When you said, "where you conclude..." you apparently misunderstood. I was quoting Dr. Hoffmeier. I made no such conclusion. If you'll note, the quote marks go from "There are three relevant terms ..." to "... they do not fit the biblical legal and social definition." All his remarks, not mine.)
Dan Trabue: "Now, as you know, I'm not suggesting we ought to implement every law in the OT as a modern law. But, FOR CHRISTIANS and others who hold fast to biblical teachings, I would think there would be at the very least, a strong wariness to implementing laws that seem SO UTTERLY contrary to such a large portion of the Bible."
First, it is only "UTTERLY contrary" if you refuse to allow for any possibility that Dr. Hoffmeier and the like have any credibility. Second, there are a couple of problems here. First, as you well know, people today do not want American government to have its laws dictated by Christianity. Second, even if you disagreed with that idea, the actual capability of Christians in America to prevent the implementation of laws contrary to biblical teaching is almost non-existent. (As an example, the laws that legalized the murder of little children as long as they are not born yet. We were unable to prevent it. We've been unable to change it. In fact, new laws have been passed that require people who work in the medical field or pharmacy to violate their own principles to serve these laws. That is, it's not getting better; it's getting worse.)
Okay, recap ... it's only utterly contrary if you cannot be wrong in your interpretation, and I seriously question our capability of influencing the passage of laws.
And then there's this whole very bizarre notion that "We ought to even violate these laws if they don't line up with Old Testament rules" side by side with "I'm not suggesting we implement every law in the OT as modern law." On what do you base this distinction? How do you decide which rules to follow and which not? And if these choices are your choices (Dr. Hoffmeier, for instance, is not allowed to be right), why should your choices have any bearing on anyone else (such as Dr. Hoffmeier or me)?
You ask about God criminalizing behavior. You understand the nonsense, right? Moving on, your view appears to be that the circumstances surrounding the behavior determine whether it is right or wrong. His farm was destroyed by cheap U.S. goods, so he's perfectly right to violate American laws to eat here. Where does that go? He's not a thief generally, but his family is hungry, so surely it's not wrong in God's eyes for him to steal some food from the local store to feed them. Right? And we spiral down into moral relativism.
I won't answer your questions about "What would you do?" I wrote an entire blog entry asking the question. Why do you think I'd have easy answers? (Or do you suppose I have no questions myself about these issues? Or no compassion?)
On what do you base this distinction?
How serious the consequences are.
IF we're talking about whether it's generally right or wrong to allow every rich or middle class person admittance into the US, I'm much less concerned about the answer. IF we don't allow them in, then they'll continue to prosper elsewhere just as they've been prospering.
There's no concern for justice in that situation.
IF, on the other hand, it's a matter of life and death - if we don't change our policy, then poor people will BE dying (at least partially) as a result of that policy, then that's a whole other level of gravity.
Given the Gospel's clear and constant warnings against NOT tending to the needs of the least of these (translated as the Greek equivalent of "nekhar," by the way), about NOT being on the wrong side of injustice and oppression towards the poor, widows and foreigners, I'd think that Christians would be wary of turning in the Mexican "illegal" who merely violated a fairly arbitrary and relatively inconsequential man-made rule when life and death of innocents were on the line.
I mean, you appear to get it, you DO seem wary about saying you would turn him in. I think we all can see that there's something just not quite right - at least from a Christian point of view - about the notion of criminalizing someone who is merely trying to keep his family alive.
We're not talking about breaking God's laws that are fairly universal in nature (don't steal, don't cheat the poor, don't kill, etc), but just a man-made and arbitrary rule made about immigration. Who decided that the roughly one million number we let in each year is the "right" number? We did, of course, but the point is, it's entirely arbitrary. There is no "right" number in any moral sense, unless you want to argue for "all who need in..."
Given your reluctance indicated in your previous post, I think you must understand the moral problem here, at least a bit. So perhaps we aren't all that far apart on this one...
Thanks for considering this.
Peace.
I'm sorry, let me clarify this one point, if I may...
Okay, so there is no distinction -- no allowable distinction -- in your version of your Bible that will allow for "legal" aliens versus visitors.
No, I think it is clear that Hoffmeier is correct - there ARE different words for alien within the Bible, I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just suggesting the conclusion that, therefore, only the "ger" were to be welcomed and provided for is not a good way of managing those differences. There WERE differences - those "passing through" visitors did not have all the same legal protections as the "permanent" visitors, for instance. The rule about land being GIVEN to visitors appears to be directed towards the "ger" not the others, for instance.
No, he is correct that there are some distinctions between the different words and how they are used. I just disagree with the conclusion that, therefore, ONLY for the "ger" are we to provide assistance and welcome. We are to do this for the poor, regardless, as Jesus clearly noted (using the Greek word Xenos, I believe, indicating ALL strangers...)
I'm sorry for the confusion, I'm sure that was from how I stated my disagreement. My fault.
Stan: "On what do you base this distinction [of which OT rules to use or not]?"
Dan Trabue: "How serious the consequences are."
That has to be "in my own opinion", of course. That is, if God says, "I find it abominable" that wouldn't necessarily be as serious a consequence as, say, not being hospitable to foreigners.
I understand the drive to help people in need. What I don't understand is the premise that a Christian nation should have no right or obligation to control its borders. Of course, we aren't a Christian nation and I don't get to determine immigration rules, so it's all moot. I disagree with the premise that all Christians need to welcome all foreigners under the rules of OT law, so all I'm currently left with is Rom 13:1-7 (and similar passages) and a vague question about what else should be done.
You DO agree, though, don't you, that if it comes down to a governmental law and God's law, that you'd choose God's law?
That is, IF the gov't required that you kill your firstborn, you would refuse to do it. You would engage in civil disobedience at some point, right? Your Romans 13 passage can only take you so far. You still are responsible for following God.
You may not find the plethora of verses about how we treat the poor and foreigner to be serious enough to warrant committing civil disobedience - even if it came down to life and death situations - but I certainly do.
After all, Ezekiel 16 tells us that not tending to the least of these is detestable to God, and that's pretty serious...
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Stan, I'm not accusing here, just asking: Is there some reason why you can't answer the question: What would you do if you found this "illegal" immigrant who was only here to feed his family to keep them from starving?
Isn't the only possible moral answer that you would help them in some way? I mean, perhaps ideally, you could say to him, "Tell you what - let's find a way to get you legally back in Mexico with your family and STILL able to work and provide for them," and then do it in a prompt manner. THAT to me would also be an acceptable answer. OR letting them work here and send the money back and disobeying the law, THAT is an acceptable answer. BUT, I can see no moral way at all that would allow anyone interested in Godly ethics to turn someone in and get them deported.
You don't really think that's even an option, do you?
Just a quick little Bible study, if you're inclined to allow this one more. You said...
That has to be "in my own opinion", of course. That is, if God says, "I find it abominable" that wouldn't necessarily be as serious a consequence as, say, not being hospitable to foreigners.
You DO know that sometimes the word "abominable" in the Bible is not referring to disgustingly awful MORAL issues, but rather taboo cultural issues. Eating shrimp was not an abomination because shrimp was an evil to God, but because of cultural reasons.
Sometimes, something that is an abomination or that God detests IS because of moral issues - for instance, God detests those who mistreat the poor, who don't do unto the poor as we'd do unto God, who don't, etc...
He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
He lends at usury and takes excessive interest.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death
So, it would be very important to stand against those MORALLY detestable things, but not so much the culturally ones.
Yes, some "abominations" were abominations to people. Moses worried about sacrificing to the Lord in front of the Egyptians because it was an abomination ... to the Egyptians. Eating shellfish, God said, was an abomination ... to Israel, not to God. But some violations of morality were an abomination ... to God.
Dan Trabue: "You may not find the plethora of verses about how we treat the poor and foreigner to be serious enough to warrant committing civil disobedience."
I suppose you're just not reading me right. Serious enough? I'm saying that the plethora of verses about how Israel was to treat visitors don't make sense in terms of illegal aliens.
I won't answer about what I would do if I came across an illegal immigrant because I don't like dealing in hypotheticals. You haven't answered what constitutes moral absolutes. It appears that you believe that it is morally right for a person to violate the law if he does it to feed his family. I can't stand there because it flies in the face of what God has said.
Do I have compassion for these situations? Indeed! Would I want to help? Absolutely! But what constitutes "help" in my mind is likely different than what's in yours. Am I helping someone who has set aside the law by aiding them in that endeavor?
I had a conversation once with a friend about the homeless. I said, "Imagine three good people that pass the guy on the street holding the sign saying he is hungry and needs help. One passes by thinking, 'The best thing I can do for him is to ignore him so that he gets desperate enough to do something about it.' Another stops and gives him $10 thinking, 'The best thing I can do for him is to give him some money so he can eat.' The third owns a company and stops to offer him a job thinking, 'The best thing I can do for him is to put him to work so he can earn a living.'" I asked, "Which one showed love?" I would say they all did, in that they had his best interest in mind, even though all three had different approaches.
What's the best thing I could do for someone who has chosen to violate the law to enter this country and chosen to steal from the people of this country so he can feed his family? I don't rightly know, but I'm not at all sure the best thing for him would be to encourage him in his activities.
And quite clearly you and I have a different stance on what is morally detestable.
Well, for my part, I'm trying to align myself with God's will on what's morally detestable. Clearly, God finds mistreatment of the poor and foreigners morally wrong. And IF there is a law that mistreats them, I will oppose that man-made law in favor of God's law.
That's all I'm saying.
It appears that you believe that it is morally right for a person to violate the law if he does it to feed his family. I can't stand there because it flies in the face of what God has said.
I said IF the law was contrary to God's law, I would support violating that law. How does that fly in the face of God's law?
It doesn't.
I see the gist of this conversation being built around charity.
Obviously, as Christians, charity should be way up there on our priority list...
However, in order for a country or even a group of people on a smaller scale to survive, the givers must outweigh the takers or at least be even. As we allow more and more takers on board with no possibility of them even moving from taker to giver in status (as they are just making money here and sending it back - with no plans on ever becoming a contributor to our economy other than providing cheap labor and low grade pot), the scales tip more and more. Eventually our economy will be what their is now.
How does this benefit us all in the grand scheme of things?
Then, Dan, you believe that it is contrary to God's law for the United States to arbitrate who may or may not cross its borders. (That is not a question. It is the only possible conclusion since that is the law in question.) Anyone who chooses to violate that law for the sake of food is morally correct. It is also against the law to steal (which is what happens when people illegally cross the border and take resources that don't belong to them), but that must also be morally acceptable in your view because they are hungry. In other words, the primary determination of what is moral is "What I need". (I didn't say "What I want". That, of course, would be silly.)
Wow...so much is not being taken into consideration. So much illegal immigration has more to do with human trafficking and drug cartels than people just trying to feed their family. And for those that are just trying to feed their family, what about the job that they just took from a legal American citizen that has, that now has to worry about keeping their own family alive? Is that right? What about terrorists...how is a country to protect itself if anyone can just come on in undetected and kill masses of people at a time? Is that ok? It was mentioned that the aliens were "expected to obey the Israeli laws, as well, to be sure," but how come it's ok for aliens to come in to our country without respect for our law? You see, this has nothing to do with immigration. This has everything to do with illegal immigration.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
This has been the cry of America for a couple hundred years...how this is unbiblical, I'm not sure, but all we ask is that you come here legally by going through the immigration process. Maybe the number we accept each year could change, maybe other things could change, but all that is asked is that one comes legally.
Now, Ryan, Mr. Trabue is quite convinced that preventing people who feel they need to be here is a violation of biblical principles, so "illegal" is "irrelevant". I, of course, am not so convinced ...
Here in AZ the protestors shout, "Just because they came in illegally doesn't make them criminals." Well, um, yes, it does. "Illegally" is what defines "criminal". That leaves off the question, "If they're willing to violate the law to come in, what other laws are they willing to violate to stay?" That answer, statistically, is "Quite a few."
Dan T., please don't say...
"Well, for my part, I'm trying to align myself with God's will on what's morally detestable."
You've proven in the past (during discussions of abortion and homosexuality) that you do not align yourself with what God says in the Bible on those subjects. To say it here doesn't help your credibility any.
I like what Ryan (and Stan)said about the legality of it...if they come legally, it's a different story. Just come legally, through the immigration process.
Starflyer...
You've proven in the past (during discussions of abortion and homosexuality) that you do not align yourself with what God says in the Bible on those subjects. To say it here doesn't help your credibility any.
I repeat: I AM trying to align myself with God. That you disagree with my conclusion is not evidence that I'm not trying. Could I be wrong? Sure, always.
Just as you could be wrong.
What IS factual and definite though is that IF I am mistaken, it is an honest mistake made in an effort to seek God's will. If I'm making a mistake, then I will have to rest my poor self on God's sweet grace. Just as you will have to do.
May God have mercy on us all.
Dan T., I must say, I think that may have been the best answer I've seen you ever give. Humble, short and genuine. Thanks!
Post a Comment