The Use and Abuse of the Bible in the Immigration Debate.

[Richard T]

Like I said I don't like to bring biblical characters into the picture. You can quote teachings not specific cases. For none of us knew the true extend of the issues faced. Who is to say Joseph and Mary entered into Egypt illegally? Is there a passage that says they did so? Any historical evidence of Egyptian immigration laws? During the time of Jesus around (0/3AD - 33AD) Rome ruled both Egypt & Judea. Roman citizens can move freely between provinces of the empire. Something Paul use to his advantage in his early missionary ways.

That's why I don't want to bring historical cases in. Unless you're well verse in the history, culture and general environment of the time what you said can only be juxtaposing modern perceptions.

I doubt Jesus was moved illegally, I assume the foreigners are treated with more respect. I assume too that the economics are more equitable requiring less migration in bible times. But you are right without more knowledge I should not make any assumptions on that particular case. Here is an interesting teaching though on Jesus' migration. Jesus as a Migrant?

 

[Adam56]

Biblically, I sure am glad that Mary and Joseph were able to leave their country when the baby males were being executed.

This is false. Egypt was part of the Roman Empire. It is the equivalent of crossing state borders, not country borders.

 

[rambot]

I would have thought the Gospel of John would be chosen.

John 10:1
Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.

I can't imagine that you think that the context of this verse is appropriate otherwise I'm sure you would have included it. Because it is VERY clearly telling us to listen to Jesus and not false prophets. It has nothing to do with immigration and, dang, it feel dirty to have a Bible verse used so dishonestly.

People always mistake legal immigrant with illegal immigrant. One comes through your doors with proper documentations the other doesn't. Even asylum seekers have paperwork. I really don't get the argument for illegal immigration. Also stop calling them undocumented. It's illegal because they break the law.

A "human" can't be illegal. That's why we call PEOPLE undocumented.

 

[Fantine]

The Gospel is frequently cherry picked, its verses like a high school debater's 3x5 cards.

I have seen several books on this topic.

The Gospel According to Peanuts.
According to Bono.
According to Mr. Rogers.

Wouldn't be too inspired by the Gospel According to Jim Abbott.

 

[Pommer]

All the posturing about illegal immigration doesn't do one's country any good. You think my country doesn't have this problem? Unlike certain people in the US we don't tolerate illegals. You're not going to find any political parties or social activists crying moral foul about it. Illegal means illegal. If we don't like the law we change it instead of break it. Malaysian immigration laws are quite unaccommodating to foreign spouses, you know what we don't do? Break the law and then cry moral high ground. We complain to our parliamentary representatives and they fight to have changes made.

It might not be a problem for you but that is only you. In a country that has 300+ million people, "you" don't get to speak for all or should "your" ideals be best.

Please enjoy the draconian “tough on immigrants“ laws of your land, then.
Treat your [nation’s] immigrants in whatever fashion your people wish.

While it is true that immigrants to the USA do not have a right to enter, they do have the right to petition the Nation for asylum, as the USA is bound by (some or other iteration) of the Refugee Treaty of 1952 (or there abouts).

Yes, I’m just one person, blissfully unaware of the immigration status of many of the people who share this land with me. Why is this an issue?

 

[rturner76]

Makes a lot of sense to be honest. Assisting someone who is actively sinning by breaking the law isn’t loving them.

It wasn't actively sinning when the English, Irish, German, and Scandinavians were immigrating. Back then the USA was the land of plenty where anyone could get a fresh start and have a crack at the "American Dream." It wasn't until brown people started crossing the border that seeking refuge in the United States was deemed illegal.

That is one issue. Another is how should Christians treat visitors and refugees. Well, if we want to make secular laws based on Christian values, would any of these verses apply as it relates to the welcoming of strangers?

• Matthew 25:31-40: Jesus says, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me". Scholars say that in the New Testament, "stranger" and "neighbor" are synonymous, and that Christians should see everyone as "Christ" in the flesh.
• Hebrews 13:2: "Be sure to welcome strangers into your home".
• Matthew 25:35: "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me".
• Luke 14:13: Jesus instructs his followers to invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind to their banquets.
  1 Peter 4:9: "Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Knowing that Christ himself tells us to welcome the stranger, does that change how we should view immigration?
  Our government seems to have no problem with businesses that hire migrant workers with no documentation to pick fruits and veggies. I mean who wants to pay a living wage to people who have no rights? Should our government perhaps work toward stopping the illegal business practices of company owners who hire illegal labor for pennies on the dollar thereby shutting down demand for illegal labor? Perhaps it's better to hunt down and imprison/deport people for working jobs on offer. Would that curb immigration more than eliminating demand for undocumented workers and renters?
  
  
  

Since we have separation of Church and state, the Bible shouldn’t be used.

In regard to the law of the land, I totally agree. One should enter the country through the proper application.
In regard to our individual Christian ethics, based on the passages I cited in response to the post above, I believe we should open our homes to the stranger (or neighbor as it is also translated). The way these two differing ways of dealing with strangers, if enough Christians could agree, and vote accordingly, we could find ourselves welcoming strangers to our shores (like we did on Ellis Island) and locking up criminals instead of refugees. In my book, anyone is a refugee if they are seeking refuge from a difficult, impossible, or deadly situation.

 

[IceJad]

Please enjoy the draconian laws of your land, then.
Treat your [nation’s] immigrants in whatever fashion your people wish.

While it is true that immigrants to the USA do not have a right to enter, they do have the right to petition the Nation for asylum, as the USA is bound by (some or other iteration) of the Refugee Treaty of 1952 (or there abouts).

Yes, I’m just one person, blissfully unaware of the immigration status of many of the people who share this land with me. Why is this an issue?

Again with the name calling. Draconian? Have you even study what my country's immigration laws look like? Just because we don't tolerate illegals we are suddenly draconian? While we do have some draconian laws in the form of internal security acts they are not much different from the US version. Strict immigration is not draconian. Do you know how many legal immigrants we allow in? Read before you comment.

Malaysia

According to the Malaysian Department of Statistics, there were approximately 3 million migrants living in Malaysia by the end of July 2023, which made up 8.9% of the country’s population of 33.4 million. Migrants in Malaysia mostly originate from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, and other...

www.iom.int

You talk as though illegal immigrants did any petitioning to the US before entry. That's why I said earlier people mistake illegal immigration with legal immigration. Petitioning for asylum is a legal method of entering. Face it there is no actual good reason to allowing illegal immigrations. You just can't accept that there are people who don't like law breakers.

 

[IceJad]

A "human" can't be illegal. That's why we call PEOPLE undocumented.

Wrong humans can be illegal. The word illegal denotes the status of the person is currently in. The word undocumented is being use to downplay the seriousness of the issue. It is a political move. At best you can say undocumented immigrant is a synonym of illegal immigrant.

Ever country uses the word illegal to explain law breaking immigrants.

Facilitation of Illegal Immigration | Europol

European Union’s law enforcement agency

www.europol.europa.eu

https://www.imi.gov.my/index.php/en/enforcement/

 

[Adam56]

It wasn't actively sinning when the English, Irish, German, and Scandinavians were immigrating. Back then the USA was the land of plenty where anyone could get a fresh start and have a crack at the "American Dream." It wasn't until brown people started crossing the border that seeking refuge in the United States was deemed illegal.

Those people are the ones who built this country. Modern immigrants are not trying to build this country, they are trying to leech off a country that’s already been built. Also the fact that you bring up they’re brown is just a thinly disguised “you’re racist” accusation, which doesn’t really add anything to the discussion.

• Matthew 25:31-40: Jesus says, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me". Scholars say that in the New Testament, "stranger" and "neighbor" are synonymous, and that Christians should see everyone as "Christ" in the flesh.

This in no way obligates allowing anyone into this country.

• Hebrews 13:2: "Be sure to welcome strangers into your home".

This is referring to a house, not a country.

 

[RileyG]

Is there really a separation when the State is able to impose on the Church but not vice versa? I get the reason for the separation just not the implementation.

No. The state should not impose on the Church or other religions, you’re right. It’s a two way street to be fair.,,,.but I fail to see how this is related to immigration? Just to stay on topic.

 

[RileyG]

My great grandmother was an immigrant who never learned English. I wonder if they somehow makes me less “American.”

People have a right where they want to live. Legally. Simple.

 

[Pommer]

Again with the name calling. Draconian? Have you even study what my country's immigration laws look like? Just because we don't tolerate illegals we are suddenly draconian? While we do have some draconian laws in the form of internal security acts they are not much different from the US version. Strict immigration is not draconian. Do you know how many legal immigrants we allow in? Read before you comment.

You crowed about how your nation conquered their illegal-immigrant problem by not letting it happen, through your laws and culture, which, I admit wouldn’t have to be “draconian”, so I’ve amended my above posting to something equally as offensive I guess. What do I know?

 

[Richard T]

This is false. Egypt was part of the Roman Empire. It is the equivalent of crossing state borders, not country borders.

I admit I do not know the political or cultural context as to what was required if anything during the time of Jesus.

This is false. Egypt was part of the Roman Empire. It is the equivalent of crossing state borders, not country borders.

Sorry I did not look more closely at the context of changing provinces and even now I do not know exactly what that might entail. Obviously, Herod had no jurisdiction in Egypt whereas in the USA we have reciprocity agreements between states and some Federal oversight. That Herod could kill all male babies within a certain area is quite a lot of power. Modern federalism would never give such power to a state, since the federal oversight is far stronger. I imagine too that government in the time of Jesus was part civil and part religious though admittedly I have very little knowledge how governments were formed and ruled outside of contemporary times. Here is the closest I could find on the subject. Jesus Was a Refugee

 

[rturner76]

Those people are the ones who built this country.

That's right, slaves did.

Also the fact that you bring up they’re brown is just a thinly disguised “you’re racist” accusation, which doesn’t really add anything to the discussion.

It's not you as an individual that's racist, it's the systemic racism of the USA.

This in no way obligates allowing anyone into this country.

Why not, it's the same moral lesson.

This is referring to a house, not a country.

We live in a house, we live in a country. Either way, it's about comforting the sojourner.

 

[Adam56]

That's right, slaves did.

No, people did. Slavery was abolished in 1865, about 160 years ago. Slaves also didn’t really build that much, they worked on plantations. While there were definitely some contributions by slaves in the past, this country was primarily built by non slaves.

It's not you as an individual that's racist, it's the systemic racism of the USA.

Or, it’s the fact that we can’t afford to take care of people when we need to take care of ourselves first.

Furthermore, if a white person from Brazil or Argentina traveled up to the border and crossed illegally, they’d still be subject to deportation.

Why not, it's the same moral lesson.


We live in a house, we live in a country. Either way, it's about comforting the sojourner.

Very very different. A house is shared by a small amount of people, not millions of people. Millions of people don’t want this country flooded with immigrants. You are suggesting that the government forces it onto people to let those immigrants in. against the wishes of millions. Would you suggest the government force people to open their houses up to guests? I don’t think so. The Bible in no way says we have to be crazy cat ladies and take in every needy person. Our country needs to fix itself first.

 

[rturner76]

No, people did. Slavery was abolished in 1865, about 160 years ago. Slaves also didn’t really build that much, they worked on plantations. While there were definitely some contributions by slaves in the past, this country was primarily built by non slaves.

Well, they built everything in the southern states and Washington DC at least. Perhaps slaves didn't build every single building but it was on the slave economy the the United States built its empire.

Or, it’s the fact that we can’t afford to take care of people when we need to take care of ourselves first.

Thing is, it seems we can't afford to pay market value on fruits and vegetables so we need undocumented labor so we don't have to pay more than 33 cents for a banana.

Furthermore, if a white person from Brazil or Argentina traveled up to the border and crossed illegally, they’d still be subject to deportation

But likely they won't be subject to be kept in a makeshift cage until then.

Very very different. A house is shared by a small amount of people, not millions of people. Millions of people don’t want this country flooded with immigrants.

A country is shared by many people. House small/country big. Still the same thing if we want to call ourselves a "Christian Country, we should act like Christians and give refuge to the traveler.

You are suggesting that the government forces it onto people to let those immigrants in. against the wishes of millions. Would you suggest the government force people to open their houses up to guests? I don’t think so. The Bible in no way says we have to be crazy cat ladies and take in every needy person. Our country needs to fix itself first.

The country will never fix itself but maybe new blood would. Plus remember immigration was not an issue until people of color began to immigrate. The Irish, Italians, Germans, English, French, and Scandinavians were allowed free and clear access, why is the same not appropriate for people with brown skin?

In fact, why don't we all leave this country and give it back to the people that the Europeans stole it from and send the millions that they kidnapped and brought here home? If we want to talk about the moral highground, why don't we kick out the European immigrants whose families literally stole the land from it's native population? If it was OK for Europeans to come and conquer, it's okay for any people to come here.

 

[Adam56]

Well, they built everything in the southern states and Washington DC at least. Perhaps slaves didn't build every single building but it was on the slave economy the the United States built its empire.

They didn’t build everything in the southern states either. They worked on plantations. Infrastructure was still built by non slaves.

Thing is, it seems we can't afford to pay market value on fruits and vegetables so we need undocumented labor so we don't have to pay more than 33 cents for a banana.

There are plenty of other countries that can afford fruits and vegetables without undocumented labor. The solution isn’t to just let illegals flood the country.

But likely they won't be subject to be kept in a makeshift cage until then.

Prove it.

A country is shared by many people. House small/country big. Still the same thing if we want to call ourselves a "Christian Country, we should act like Christians and give refuge to the traveler.

Yes, and most people want strong secure borders. They don’t want a free for all.

The country will never fix itself but maybe new blood would.

“New Blood”?

Plus remember immigration was not an issue until people of color began to immigrate. The Irish, Italians, Germans, English, French, and Scandinavians were allowed free and clear access, why is the same not appropriate for people with brown skin?

Because times change. Slavery used to be legal but times changed. It’s pretty simple. Furthermore you are not really contributing anything by pointing out skin color.

In fact, why don't we all leave this country and give it back to the people that the Europeans stole it from and send the millions that they kidnapped and brought here home? If we want to talk about the moral highground, why don't we kick out the European immigrants whose families literally stole the land from it's native population? If it was OK for Europeans to come and conquer, it's okay for any people to come here.

hahahaha

You just showed your hand. This is a typical left wing talking point. It’s similar to the “blacks in America are owed reparations.” No they are not. Pointing to what ancestors did has nothing to do with the current people. The fact is the past is the past. If anything the past can serve as a template for what to avoid.

 

[camille70]

The precedent would be a illegal needs an emergency procedure like an appendix that burst. USA hospitals, many funded with government money would perform the operation. The initiation of a immoral act of crossing the border does not necessarily forfeit the privilege of getting medical help. Strict libertarians call most wealth transfers theft, even if a fellow citizen. I would favor the life saving path. Prolonged treatment including drugs might be different but the loss is not as much as one might expect since the monies spent on treatment do get recycled back to health care workers and companies. There are illegals too that contribute to the USA, a net win in taxes. I would suggest the USA could look for ways to receive more of these people and less of the criminals and undesirables.

There are ways to recapture monies from illegals too. Tariffs on that nation's products, taxes on remittances and deductions from foreign aid packages would incentivize some nations to do more to limit their citizens from crossing the border.

To speed up legal immigration and require those visiting the USA I still like the bonding method. Should they fail to leave as expected the bond could become bounty for anyone that that turned in such an illegal. Today i saw an article of a Turkish man who said he paid 10,000 to a cartel for smuggling after he tried several times to enter the USA legally. I'll assume his intentions were to work, but at least the USA would get the 10,000 if he overstayed and the cartels nothing.

Some nations allow long tourist stays, perhaps even as much as two years. For those extensions, immigrants have to report in every so often and pay fees for each month. They also have to get a clearance to leave the country. Thus, if they did not pay fees they might be detained until they pay the fees, plus fines.

Biblically, I sure am glad that Mary and Joseph were able to leave their country when the baby males were being executed. Imagine if there is no where to go. This too needs reform to separate the bona fide asylum seekers with those just using the designation for a pretense to stay. Since immigration courts take a year to hear the cases, that is totally ridiculous and on us. Detain and make quick decisions would stop the incentive to come here illegally for many and allow the bona fide asylum seeks a safe haven. I hate to say it but there could come a time when USA citizens could be the refugees. The movie Day After Tomorrow though complete fiction depicts such a possibility. I guess overall the USA should work to be humane but take practical steps to eliminate illegal crossings or find ways to fund those crossings to eliminate some of the burden on US taxpayers.

If Joseph had followed the law Mary would have been stoned and Jesus wouldn't have been born through her. In fact the bible specifically says because he was a kind/just man he was going to put her away quietly and not shame her prior to an angel appearing to him and telling him to keep her as his wife.

 

[Adam56]

If Joseph had followed the law Mary would have been stoned and Jesus wouldn't have been born through her.

False.

 

[camille70]

Well, they built everything in the southern states and Washington DC at least. Perhaps slaves didn't build every single building but it was on the slave economy the the United States built its empire.

Thing is, it seems we can't afford to pay market value on fruits and vegetables so we need undocumented labor so we don't have to pay more than 33 cents for a banana.

But likely they won't be subject to be kept in a makeshift cage until then.

A country is shared by many people. House small/country big. Still the same thing if we want to call ourselves a "Christian Country, we should act like Christians and give refuge to the traveler.

The country will never fix itself but maybe new blood would. Plus remember immigration was not an issue until people of color began to immigrate. The Irish, Italians, Germans, English, French, and Scandinavians were allowed free and clear access, why is the same not appropriate for people with brown skin?

In fact, why don't we all leave this country and give it back to the people that the Europeans stole it from and send the millions that they kidnapped and brought here home? If we want to talk about the moral highground, why don't we kick out the European immigrants whose families literally stole the land from it's native population? If it was OK for Europeans to come and conquer, it's okay for any people to come here.

Visa overstays have exceeded border crossings for several years now. No one is asking white looking foreigners to prove they belong here tho.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings

Video you might like