This is a tough question and one I struggle with myself, being a conservative republican in America. I'm not a fan of mass deportation, which is something my political party generally is for, but I also see the problems that mass, unchecked, immigration can cause.
Is it okay, iyo, that other countries engage in mass deprotation?
Instead of hating on immigrants....
Who,
specifically, is it you think is "
hating on immigrants"?
, regardless of their legal status, I have decided to view it as an opportunity to share the Gospel with a group of people that may not have heard it yet.
Amen, but most South Americans are Catholic. Without getting into the divide between RCism and Protestantism, most of them have already heard the gospel (or at least a Marxist-influenced version of it). What they may not have experienced is the
application of the gospel.
That doesn't mean I am for open borders however, because I don't think it is a sin or hateful to take into account what our economy can support, as well as the safety of the people already living here, before letting just anybody in.
That is incorrect. If
45.4 million people (that is 14% of the entire US population) were not using welfare resources our economy would look
much different. According to the
Center for Immigration Studies, 59.4 of immigrant households use one or more welfare program. The US spends about a half-trillion dollars
per year per year in welfare to immigrants. That doe NOT include money spent enforcing the border and other areas where other resources are spent on what is a very real
logistical problem. The logistics have become so untenable the moral problem is multiplied! Every dollar spent on someone who has broken the law to get here is a dollar that cannot be spent on someone who arrived legally. Those dollars cannot be spent on non-immigrant citizens in need of government assistance, either. ALL of these same conditions apply to the Church, too. We, you and me, cannot help those who've here legally as well because our resources (material and non-material) are divided.
I think this is the responsible thing to do.
Let me make sure I understand that correctly: Despite being against open borders, it is right to spend resources on those who've come here illegally at the expense of those who were born here and those who've come here legally?
For the people who have already come, I think they should be given a path to citizenship so long as they adapt to American culture, stay out of trouble, and are able to support themselves, along with any family members who came with them.
Aside from the "path to citizenship" those laws already exist. Not a single thing has to change, legally.
This is like when Second Amendment critics say gun reform must include background checks and automatic weapons cannot be sold legally. Those arguments do nothing more than show a profound ignorance of the facts because no one in America can buy a gun legally without a background check or purchase an automatic weapon without a specific government-sanctioned need for one. Those laws have been on the books for
decades.
It is because of dishonest leftist propaganda most folks do not know the correct and effective laws on immigration already exist. They are not being enforced.
That is the problem. Lawlessness on both sides of the border has cause the problem (in America, at least). I'm sure different explanations and different problems ensue in England, France, and Europe as a whole. The US is about the same size as the whole of Europe (the US is about .04% bigger), but Europe is an aggregation of individual nation-states each with their own sovereignty in ways individual states in the United States do not have. So when England has 10 million immigrants in 56 million people (67 mil in the UK) that's a slightly bigger problem, and evidence of lawlessness on both sides of the border.
Rounding them up and dumping them back in their home country would make me feel like we're saying they are human trash, which they are not.
We're not supposed to act based on feelings.
Your situation is made even more complicated because the majority of immigration to your country is Muslim and seems to be very hostile to your culture.
Which is one of the reasons most western countries regulated immigration. No country wants the loss of its culture and character. This gets exploited in the US and the UK because we have a greater degree of inherent plurality than most European countries. Add to the diversity! is the argument but the actual result is the adulteration of the existing already-diverse culture. Here in America, we have always taken in more people
legally than most other countries
combined. America has never been anti-immigration, but we have practiced immigration policy following the rule of law. It's only in the past three or four decades that the rule of law has eroded.
The US accommodates 4.5 Muslim, the overwhelming majority of which immigrated here legally. We have 333 million people overall. The UK has about the same number of Muslims in a population one-fifth the size
. France has about 50%
more Muslims in a population comparable to the UK. Land-wise, France is about the size of our Texas, and the UK about the size or our Oregon. Four decades these three countries used to spend money helping other countries improve themselves (yes, it was typically with economic benefit to us) and that served an indirectly limiting effect on
illegal immigration and a positively moderating effect on
legal immigration. We still get many of the best, brightest, and industrious of other countries and educate them and employ them. Many of them become citizens..... but many of them go back to their own countries to positive economic and gospel effect in their countries of origin.
Get back to the rule of law and many, if not most, of the problems associated with
illegal immigration will solve themselves.
That is the godly thing to do.
On top of that, your government seems to want to lock you up for hate speech for something even as simple as this post.
Off-topic.
That's where I think the real problem with the whole immigration issue lies.
No, hate speech is a red herring.
