Is an Open Border Policy a Biblical Mandate?

[2PhiloVoid]

An Open Border Policy Is Not a Biblical Mandate

Within Christian circles, the political debate over open borders has been happening in tandem with a theological debate where some appear to be arguing that all

washingtonstand.com

The Bible unquestionably endorses the idea of welcoming strangers and showing hospitality. It further calls for the just treatment of everyone, because they are created in the image of God (Deuteronomy 24:17). But that’s not a rebuke of national borders or a statement that people should be able to go wherever they want whenever they want. “Thou shalt not kill” and “that shalt not steal” are not in conflict, they are complementary. They both recognize that people have dignity and rights by virtue of their humanity, which include the right to life and the right to property. Nations are a way of recognizing property that is owned by a community and therefore not owned by those outside the community. This means people inside a community have privileges those outside a community do not have. Like the definition of a woman, this hasn’t been controversial until very recently.

The book of Nehemiah is dedicated to the idea that the security that comes from walls is a sign of God’s blessing and provision. Conversely, the lack of walls is evidence of social decay and vulnerability. God is not troubled that the purpose of walls is to prevent some people from doing things they want to do because He knows some people desire to do things they shouldn’t do, like take fentanyl and victims of sex trafficking across international borders for the purpose of killing and exploiting.

Of course, not everyone seeking to cross our border intends harm, but that would also be true of all the people who might want to sleep in your house tonight if they knew it was unlocked, but you lock it anyway.

This Old Testament border rule does not directly apply to the present issue of America's borders, although it could serve as a general ethical hueristic on how to evaluate the matter.

 

[rambot]

The Catholics came in as legal citizens. Some nationalities did suffer more than others. The Chinese had a difficult time here also. Tribal loyalty can produce both good and evil.

Just look at north american immigration waves. You see there is a wave and the "nativists" hate them. Then eventually a NEW wave starts, and the old hated wave jumps on them to be come nativists and more accepted.
Consider in the US through the (late 1800s) 1900s:
Irish--> Italian--> Polish

 

[rambot]

So sad, .... ---- so many worldly people .....

Tribalism is human nature sadly. But that's why multiculturalism is so great!

Honestly, one of my favourite things is going to a certain park in my town (about a million people) where there are people in ALL manner of cultural outfits

 

[ViaCrucis]

You didn’t really contradict his statement at all. All you’ve said was “xenophobia is evil.”

The narrative of immigrants as "invaders" is a form of long-standing xenophobic rhetoric that has been used to demonize people who are perceived as "other". It was wrong when it was used against Irish and Italian immigrants coming to the country in the 19th century, and it's wrong now.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

@ViaCrucis do u understand that Mary Jesus and Joseph weren’t refugees?

Did the Holy Family leave Judea for Egypt to seek refuge away from Herod? The answer is yes. They were refugees. By definition.

That Egypt and Judea were both under Roman occupation and control doesn't change that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Belk]

I doubt the invaders to the USA are angels in disguise.

When millions of invaders come into a country, as in the late 1900s or early 2000s, over a short period of time, they change the country for the worse.

Just ask the natural-born citizens in France and the people in the other countries in Europe how they feel about the destruction of their countries caused by their admittance of millions of refugees, and you will then see what will happen to the USA if this free entry policy continues.

Heck, just ask the native Americans.

 

[Belk]

You didn’t really contradict his statement at all. All you’ve said was “xenophobia is evil.”

Did Catholics ruin the country?

 

[Adam56]

Did the Holy Family leave Judea for Egypt to seek refuge away from Herod? The answer is yes. They were refugees. By definition.

That Egypt and Judea were both under Roman occupation and control doesn't change that.

-CryptoLutheran

If someone leaves Texas and goes to Oklahoma, they aren’t refugees by this definition. That’s the proper analogy I made.

The narrative of immigrants as "invaders" is a form of long-standing xenophobic rhetoric that has been used to demonize people who are perceived as "other". It was wrong when it was used against Irish and Italian immigrants coming to the country in the 19th century, and it's wrong now.

-CryptoLutheran

Nah, I don’t think it’s wrong. Just because you say it’s wrong doesn’t mean it is.

 

[BCP1928]

The Catholics came in as legal citizens. Some nationalities did suffer more than others. The Chinese had a difficult time here also. Tribal loyalty can produce both good and evil.

The present wave of asylum seekers are being let in, so they are constructiviley legal. You may think they should be kept out, you may think that letting them in is a technical violation of the law, you may think they are not being processed and supervised adequateoly. Those are all valid positions which may be argued rationally, but they are not "illegal alliens" in anything like the same sense as a person who sneaks in and tries to stay below the radar while taking advantage of the prosperity of this country.

 

[Jan001]

Not exactly. The religious leaders were the ones seeking to execute Messiah Yahshua. Leaders in every field today are seeking power, prestige, money, more money, more money, more money ... ... ... ... ...

Tribes offer safety for their members.

 

[Adam56]

The present wave of asylum seekers are being let in, so they are constructiviley legal. You may think they should be kept out, you may think that letting them in is a technical violation of the law, you may think they are not being processed and supervised adequateoly. Those are all valid positions which may be argued rationally, but they are not "illegal alliens" in anything like the same sense as a person who sneaks in and tries to stay below the radar while taking advantage of the prosperity of this country.

There are many illegal aliens in this country though.

 

[Jan001]

Heck, just ask the native Americans.

They were definitely treated badly by our government.

 

[rambot]

If someone leaves Texas and goes to Oklahoma, they aren’t refugees by this definition. That’s the proper analogy I made.

Nah, I don’t think it’s wrong. Just because you say it’s wrong doesn’t mean it is.

Where was it in the Bible again, where Christ told us to turn away visitors and guests?

If someone leaves Texas and goes to Oklahoma, they aren’t refugees by this definition. That’s the proper analogy I made.

I'd be inclined to say it'd be more like moving from Ireland to Scotland.

They were being persecuted by Herod in one area. They left the area that was beyond Herod's control to be safe.

 

[rambot]

Just ask the natural-born citizens in France and the people in the other countries in Europe how they feel about the destruction of their countries caused by their admittance of millions of refugees, and you will then see what will happen to the USA if this free entry policy continues.

I talk to my Dutch cousins all the time. They are fine with it.

Of course, you are clearly reading some pretty trash newspapers to suggest that europe is suffering "the destruction of their countries".

 

[rambot]

They were definitely treated badly by our government.

Well, and common Americans too.....

 

[Belk]

They were definitely treated badly by our government.

And a lot of the settlers as well.

 

[Adam56]

Where was it in the Bible again, where Christ told us to turn away visitors and guests?

Jesus never said a country had to have open borders and not be selective in who they let in.

I'd be inclined to say it'd be more like moving from Ireland to Scotland.

They were being persecuted by Herod in one area. They left the area that was beyond Herod's control to be safe.

They didn’t change countries. Ireland to Scotland is a change of countries.

 

[BCP1928]

Jesus never said a country had to have open borders and not be selective in who they let in.

We are being selective. You just don't like the selection criteria.

 

[Adam56]

We are being selective. You just don't like the selection criteria.

And there is nothing wrong with disliking the selection criteria.

The only requirement of me is I am not to mistreat the people who are here. There is nothing against being against people who are attempting to be here.

 

[Jan001]

I talk to my Dutch cousins all the time. They are fine with it.

Of course, you are clearly reading some pretty trash newspapers to suggest that europe is suffering "the destruction of their countries".

Interview some the natural-born French citizens and then get back to me....

So, then, should Israel have borders?