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

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

Adam56 said:

The Use and Abuse of the Bible in the Immigration Debate

It is surprising that in the debate about the status of illegal immigrants, the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible is regularly cited.

cis.org

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

2 John 5-6
I beg you, dear lady, not as though I wrote to you a new commandment, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. This is love, that we should walk according to his commandments. This is the commandment, even as you heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

Click to expand...

I love those verses.

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.

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.

Like we don't call sinners (ourselves included) non-compliant individuals.

IceJad said:

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.

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.

Like we don't call sinners (ourselves included) non-compliant individuals.

Click to expand...

Well said!

RileyG said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

IceJad said:

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.

Click to expand...

If the power of the State impinges on the free-exercise of religion, religion is free to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

God taught me about immigration as a young missionary. Faced with illegally returning to a mission base at their request, I decided to part with the group because I did not want to violate that nation's immigration law. To make this decision, I asked was the immigration policy just? My answer was yes, so I had to sit out some weeks before reentry to an EU nation even though I knew there was no checkpoint at the time. Most illegal immigration falls under this category. People are just ignoring the law. The Biden administration and some businesses on the USA side and most of the illegals on the other side.

Where immigration law becomes unjust is how discrimination occurs. You can see this in the visa requirement for some countries being far more strict than others. God does not favor the rich over the poor, but most countries sure do when it comes to immigration. A more just system would rely on bonds to be put up to insure less violations of overstays. At least that would be less subjective and depending on the amount more equitable. Another issue of unjust immigration is how long a legal visa can take. Consider waiting more than a year to bring a wife or kid to the USA. Legal family denials are not uncommon either. So a suppression of legal immigration does occur and the USA is among the worst in processing visas.

In my thinking about immigration law, I do still think there are situations where the law of love supersedes the laws of immigration. So many claim refugee status that bona fide refugees suffer. There are some who will assist those to security and harbor them if needed and it could very well be just. Recently, I learned of a woman who was in need of a life-saving drug. In her country it was unobtainable due to it's monthly price being 3x the average monthly salary of a worker. In the USA, the drug company would give it low income patients in the USA for free. Would you harbor her if she could get the drug? Would that love supersede U.S. immigration law? As you measure to others it will be measured to you. Admittedly these instances are rare, but they do exist.

The real beef with immigration is with globalism. The model for economic and political integration (As outlined in many international econ texts) first, is free trade, then a customs union (Tariffs are equal in all nations that are members of any regional bloc) Then the next step is labor mobility, usually in the form of a "common market." (The 4th step is political union, which on the EU has achieved some steps, with an EU Parliament and other region wide governmental operations) A German easily can go and live and work anywhere in the EU. Nafta hinted at this type of integration with just a subset, truckers from Mexico or USA or Canada being allowed to drive all the way through to the USA, or Mexico. The teamsters though shot that part of NAFTA down. Since then, politicians recognize that for the USA, labor mobility between nations can not be achieved because there is no political support for that. So illegal, half sanctioned immigration is the workaround. Why they hold up legal immigrants in many cases, but coddle illegal immigration is beyond me. We might assume though that some actually do want the worst to immigrate for destabilization purposes, or perhaps even just for future votes. To facilitate that you must take only the poor immigrants illegally to shore up the democratic party. Middle class legal immigrants in many cases will not vote for democrats in the future. Of course most illegals do not vote but their children born in the USA do. It has perhaps become a long term strategy, one that should be outed by the press. Talk about a conspiracy to overturn an election. I wonder how many have conspired to basically look the other way on immigration for years. So you know there are some Republicans that accept this too. Their idea though is to simply gain cheap labor. So no election conspiracy, just an economic benefit with them.

Given the uproar there likely is going to be a shift in politics for a time. Shut the border and grant amnesty deals to satisfy democrats for a time because amnesty gives a path to citizenship and votes. Trump likely will close the border and we will have to see how the resistance stacks up assuming he is elected.

Richard T said:

In my thinking about immigration law, I do still think there are situations where the law of love supersedes the laws of immigration. So many claim refugee status that bona fide refugees suffer. There are some who will assist those to security and harbor them if needed and it could very well be just. Recently, I learned of a woman who was in need of a life-saving drug. In her country it was unobtainable due to it's monthly price being 3x the average monthly salary of a worker. In the USA, the drug company would give it low income patients in the USA for free. Would you harbor her if she could get the drug? Would that love supersede U.S. immigration law? As you measure to others it will be measured to you. Admittedly these instances are rare, but they do exist.

Click to expand...

This paragraph caught my attention. The moral quandary. To save a life you break the law. There are many angles to work here so let's go through it point form.

1. Is it fair that the benefits others contributed to be used for an outsider? She being a non-American is able to get American benefits that others have paid with their efforts (taxes). At the surface it might seem immoral to deny her of such a small benefit in comparison to the total size of the whole. A case is made for one women by one person. What if a million or 5 million made their individual cases. Would you allow all the sick in the world to come over to America and receive free medications? If not why is she special and deserving of more love? It is fair for others who contributed have less of a share due to her using the benefit. A drop from a lake is till a drop less in the lake. Now imagine it's a million or 5 million drops. Welfare works when more contribute to it than those taking from it.

2. All countries function with a set of laws. Some more just than others but none the less laws are never perfect. Everyone within the country live by the laws and those that break it are expected to be punished. Can a country function properly and be fair to all when individuals break the law under the justification of exceptional case. Can an individual make such an exception to the law without the consent and agreement of the collective? This day you do so at the displeasure of others for your own moral reasonings. Another day some others will do the same at your displeasure. What is moral to you differs from what is moral to others. When such a day come will you request for the enforcement of law? Which moral exceptions should be accepted and which shouldn't?

3. As you measure others, others will measure you. Is there a correct measure based on the above two point? Who has the correct values to measure what is right and what is wrong in a complex multifaceted issue? You can measure others as heartless in the face of live threating conditions. As others will measure you criminal for breaking the law. Who is morally right or can both be morally right at the same time? Must there be a binary decision or a zero sum game?

I'm not looking for a right answer. I just want to hear your opinions. I believe I will find it intriguing if you would humor me.

IceJad said:

This paragraph caught my attention. The moral quandary. To save a life you break the law. There are many angles to work here so let's go through it point form.

1. Is it fair that the benefits others contributed to be used for an outsider? She being a non-American is able to get American benefits that others have paid with their efforts (taxes). At the surface it might seem immoral to deny her of such a small benefit in comparison to the total size of the whole. A case is made for one women by one person. What if a million or 5 million made their individual cases. Would you allow all the sick in the world to come over to America and receive free medications? If not why is she special and deserving of more love? It is fair for others who contributed have less of a share due to her using the benefit. A drop from a lake is till a drop less in the lake. Now imagine it's a million or 5 million drops. Welfare works when more contribute to it than those taking from it.

2. All countries function with a set of laws. Some more just than others but none the less laws are never perfect. Everyone within the country live by the laws and those that break it are expected to be punished. Can a country function properly and be fair to all when individuals break the law under the justification of exceptional case. Can an individual make such an exception to the law without the consent and agreement of the collective? This day you do so at the displeasure of others for your own moral reasonings. Another day some others will do the same at your displeasure. What is moral to you differs from what is moral to others. When such a day come will you request for the enforcement of law? Which moral exceptions should be accepted and which shouldn't?

3. As you measure others, others will measure you. Is there a correct measure based on the above two point? Who has the correct values to measure what is right and what is wrong in a complex multifaceted issue? You can measure others as heartless in the face of live threating conditions. As others will measure you criminal for breaking the law. Who is morally right or can both be morally right at the same time? Must there be a binary decision or a zero sum game?

I'm not looking for a right answer. I just want to hear your opinions. I believe I will find it intriguing if you would humor me.

Click to expand...

First, the drug is given free by a foundation, so it is private and not taxpayer funded. The only requirement is to live in the USA and be low income. I am pretty sure they do not check immigration status but perhaps they might ask for a social security number. As to laws, when the authorities forbid the gospel, you may be required to break the law. If I were to give another moral dilemma. Would you accept a German Jew at the start of WWII? The U.S. denied many. I know I would harbor them or anyone in harm's way. Jesus disobeyed religious law, healing on the Sabbath and the eating of temple showbread. Sometimes it is grey but there are times when God's law supercedes man's law but it is rare. The Latter Day Saints probably take this to an extreme on immigration. Some of them have a vision to accept especially children that are illegal based on the desire to convert them. Here are more details. Utah: The Reddest (and Stealthiest) Sanctuary State

IceJad said:

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.

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.

Like we don't call sinners (ourselves included) non-compliant individuals.

Click to expand...

Agree

Richard T said:

First, the drug is given free by a foundation, so it is private and not taxpayer funded. The only requirement is to live in the USA and be low income. I am pretty sure they do not check immigration status but perhaps they might ask for a social security number.

Click to expand...

Ah, I think you misread my intentions. I'm more interested in the thought experiment than the actual specifics of her case. Since you're a missionary I would like to hear your perspectives. So let me rephrase and re-contextualize it. What if that drug is subsidized by taxpayers' money. It is morally right to let her have access to it without going from proper procedures? Would it be morally right to use a collective resource for an individual who doesn't belong in the collective without the group's explicit consent or rules set?

Richard T said:

As to laws, when the authorities forbid the gospel, you may be required to break the law. If I were to give another moral dilemma. Would you accept a German Jew at the start of WWII? The U.S. denied many. I know I would harbor them or anyone in harm's way.

Click to expand...

Now that is a non-normative case. So let's operate in a normative environment. There are no wars or conflicts. The country is in peaceful times. Would it be okay to break the law by smuggling her in for moral reasons? Can your moral reason be an exception to an established set of rules? Can others break the rules for their own interpretation of morality? When can rule of law be enforced should all cases be moral exceptions that have no equal consensus in the collective? You may believe in smuggling a sick person in. Others may believe in stealing from shops to feed the poor. More may believe in killing known child rapists. All of these are against the laws. Therefore which moral justification is excusable from the law?

Richard T said:

Jesus disobeyed religious law, healing on the Sabbath and the eating of temple showbread. Sometimes it is grey but there are times when God's law supercedes man's law but it is rare. The Latter Day Saints probably take this to an extreme on immigration. Some of them have a vision to accept especially children that are illegal based on the desire to convert them. Here are more details. Utah: The Reddest (and Stealthiest) Sanctuary State

Click to expand...

Preferably I would not want to bring our Lord into this. For He has perfect knowledge and perfect authority. It's not a moral quandary for Him for He knows the outcomes. Let's focus on us as humans with our imperfect knowledge and flaws.

Adam56 said:

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

Click to expand...

Do the laws of men always comport with Gods instruction in the Bible?
Is there ever a conflict?
If so, to which should you give preference?

IceJad said:

Ah, I think you misread my intentions. I'm more interested in the thought experiment than the actual specifics of her case. Since you're a missionary I would like to hear your perspectives. So let me rephrase and re-contextualize it. What if that drug is subsidized by taxpayers' money. It is morally right to let her have access to it without going from proper procedures? Would it be morally right to use a collective resource for an individual who doesn't belong in the collective without the group's explicit consent or rules set?



Now that is a non-normative case. So let's operate in a normative environment. There are no wars or conflicts. The country is in peaceful times. Would it be okay to break the law by smuggling her in for moral reasons? Can your moral reason be an exception to an established set of rules? Can others break the rules for their own interpretation of morality? When can rule of law be enforced should all cases be moral exceptions that have no equal consensus in the collective? You may believe in smuggling a sick person in. Others may believe in stealing from shops to feed the poor. More may believe in killing known child rapists. All of these are against the laws. Therefore which moral justification is excusable from the law?



Preferably I would not want to bring our Lord into this. For He has perfect knowledge and perfect authority. It's not a moral quandary for Him for He knows the outcomes. Let's focus on us as humans with our imperfect knowledge and flaws.

Click to expand...

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.

IceJad said:

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.

Click to expand...

My hermeneutics foo is probably all rusty, but Jesus was using the “judge by the standard the ‘accused’ has set for others”, method of discernment, rather than a general-principle that people who don’t follow “the rules” are bad.
Trying to wedge it in as an argument against people moving from one country to another without “following the rules” is a stretch.

IceJad said:

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.

Click to expand...

The USA has needed immigration reform from Congress for at least 30 years.
Our immigration system is a mess, the “legal” way is so complex and labyrinthine (not to mention, expensive), that one would “expect” most to disregard it since they know we need immigrants and will (probably) accept them, eventually, (providing they stay out of trouble and are “productive”)

IceJad said:

Like we don't call sinners (ourselves included) non-compliant individuals.

Click to expand...

Doesn’t this vaunt national Law into the realm of divinely inspired writ?

Pommer said:

My hermeneutics foo is probably all rusty, but Jesus was using the “judge by the standard the ‘accused’ has set for others”, method of discernment, rather than a general-principle that people who don’t follow “the rules” are bad.
Trying to wedge it in as an argument against people moving from one country to another without “following the rules” is a stretch.



The USA has needed immigration reform from Congress for at least 30 years.
Our immigration system is a mess, the “legal” way is so complex and labyrinthine (not to mention, expensive), that one would “expect” most to disregard it since they know we need immigrants and will (probably) accept them, eventually, (providing they stay out of trouble and are “productive”)

Doesn’t this vaunt national Law into the realm of divinely inspired writ?

Click to expand...

I find it amusing that when the law is not in conformation to your ideals it's grounds to disregard it. Why have laws then when you get to arbitrarily break it? By who's authority and sound judgement you deem the current legal immigration system non functional? Is there a study or statistic to show that the laws are a detriment?

Can those who champion the need for ILLEGAL immigration be held accountable for any and all future crimes the immigrants commit? Provided they stay out of trouble is but a fallacy. If they came in good faith there wouldn't be a need for illegal crossings. Just because a system rejects someone doesn't make it moral to just walk in. There are reasons for rejections.

Can you imagine me just walking into your house and say I'm renting a room there. No prior communication nor agreement with you. I don't have to show you any identification. I get to bring along whomever I wanted from small children to known gang members. You don't get to interview them but just accept. I don't care if it makes your spouse uncomfortable or your kids frighten. I don't even care if you're not looking to rent out a room. If a real illegal were to come knocking at your door you're going to NIMBY like the New Yorkers.

It is easy to sit on high horses as long as you don't have to be the one dealing with the issue. The administration will deal with it you can argue. Can the administration just say we want all Americans to take in one illegal family into their home. The responsibility be shoved into the people. You guys will be crying foul that the administration is breaking private property laws and personal freedoms. Laws only applies when you don't want the responsibility to uphold your ideals.

IceJad said:

It is easy to sit on high horses as long as you don't have to be the one dealing with the issue.

Click to expand...

I’m just this guy, see, out tooling around on the internet, shooting-the-breeze, yes.
I see lots more people that don’t look like “they’re from around here” and I assume that they’re here legally.
So it tends to not be a problem for me if, in fact, they’re not here “legally”.

durangodawood said:

Do the laws of men always comport with Gods instruction in the Bible?
Is there ever a conflict?
If so, to which should you give preference?

Click to expand...

Simple any laws that directly ask an individual to harm another individual don't follow. Any laws that require individuals to forfeit their personal identity and faith under penalty of incarceration, harm or death don't obey.

Being denied entry into a country is not going against any moral standards. Entry into a country is a privilege not a right. Stop conflating immigration as some sort of human right. Why have passport if illegal immigration is moral? Why have visa?

Better is you answer this: Will you be willing to walk into Mexico illegally? No passport, no visa & no identification. Will Mexico accept your excuse of cumbersome immigration laws? Some Americans like to complain about their own immigration laws being unfair. So why not try the other side in the same manner as the others try your side.

Pommer said:

I’m just this guy, see, out tooling around on the internet, shooting-the-breeze, yes.
I see lots more people that don’t look like “they’re from around here” and I assume that they’re here legally.
So it tends to not be a problem for me if, in fact, they’re not here “legally”.

Click to expand...

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.

Richard T said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.