Wife of US Coast Guard member arrested on base over expired visa after security check for military housing

[Richard T]

First, thanks for all the responses. I recognize that all consciences are different. This response is not to override your own beliefs, but perhaps it will show you and hopefully others that things are not always as neat as they seem.

Jesus wasnt talking about government. He was talking about divorce. If that same man robbed a store, I sure don't think him being separated from his wife to pay the penalty for his crime is what Jesus was referring to. Do you?

Yes, the man that robbed is a criminal and will serve his sentence. The wife would be afforded vists, and in some states even conjugal visits. An illegal border entry first offence is a misdemeanor. In this case, it was an unlawful presence, but not a crime. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/...n-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence/

The literal word in the Greek is to not separate, it is not just mean divorce. It means literal separation.

Which do you suppose God would prefer, a forced divorce yet with continued love and presence, or a forced physical separation of a married couple?
In the forced divorce the couple can still adhere to God's intention. In the forced physical separation they are still married but it has no meaning. The time frame might make a difference but God said let no man separate, and he meant it literally and not just divorce, because physically is worse. It is born out in spirit in this scripture too.

1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive each other, except by mutual consent and for a time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

Physical separation is not meant to be long in marriage. When it does occur, the time is mostly for spiritual reasons.

Here is the greek from let no man "put asunder" or separate.

"χωρίζω [See Stg: <G5563>] chorízō; fut. chōrísō, from chōrís <G5565>, without. To put apart, separate, sever.

"Act. (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9); followed by apó <G575>, from, with the gen., from something (Rom. 8:35, 39). Pass. (Heb. 7:26).

(II) Mid. chōrízomai, aor. pass. echōrísthēn. Mid. meaning to separate oneself, to depart from a person, with apó <G575>, from (1 Cor. 7:10, 15). Of a wife (Sept.: Neh. 9:2). From a place, to go away, depart, with apó, from (Acts 1:4); with ek <G1537>, out of or from (Acts 18:1, 2)." Complete Word Study Dictionary

Yes. Not that I think it was a good law. It was a stupid and racist law. But it should be obeyed or you move somewhere where it is legal. And people certainly should advocate for the ending of the law.

Your obedience to government is worthy. But look at your potential conclusion of just moving somewhere that it is legal. You assume it is easy to just live somewhere else. Yes, one can get a tourist visa but even a work permit in Mexico is not going to be easy. Like the USA, every nation I know of requires proof of funds for a visa that would allow work. A mixed race couple both of US citizenship would have even less opportunity than the Coast Guard serviceman who likely would be welcome in his wife's country.

I will challenge any reader to think more broadly about the plight of the poor in relation to immigration and their Christian obligation to work and provide.

II Thess 4:10-11 says we can't eat if we are unwilling to work. It goes on to say one is undisciplined of they do not work.
I Tim 5:8 Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Taking this from God's word, I will ask: How should a Christian faced with failing to provide for his family respond to immigration laws? Deny the faith? Or deny the government if push comes to shove and you have to be illegal in order to work and provide? The Christian response to me would be that if one did everything they can to get a job and have enough to eat and they still were starving, then illegal immigration seems to be a just Christian pathway.
Now of course this is going to set some consciences off but where is the flaw in this logic? Your family either starves (likened to denying the faith) or you immigrate illegally? These are choices Americans rarely if ever face, but others do. Of course, the poorest of the world rarely have a chance to come close to a USA border unless the UN or our government allows sponsors for them. They do not constitute the many working poor who basically come here for higher wages. Still, these are the hard questions that may put government at odds with Christianity.

But until they are made rhe law needs to be followed. If we allow cut outs for every single sad story then we might as well not have hardly anyone deported. Because everyone has a story.

Is the goal mass deportations? Why? because Trump says it is good? Yes, by all means recent arrivals, those with criminal records, and those that have no means of support here. I myself am even flexible as to how far back one wants to go. I notice that under Reagan it went back about two years only. "The Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized most undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the country prior to January 1, 1984. The act altered U.S. immigration law by making it illegal to knowingly hire illegal immigrants, and establishing financial and other penalties for companies that employed illegal immigrants." Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia

I am not an activist for immigrants but I do notice that foreigners within the USA commit less crimes. The mythical tie between immigration and crime

Those who work, pay into social security and help balance the fund.

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/immigrants-contribute-greatly-to-the-social-security-trust-funds-solvency

They likely help fuel the U.S. economy.

Proof that immigrants fuel the US economy is found in the billions they send back home

A new study finds that immigrants contribute about $2.2 trillion annually to the US economy, and that might be an undercount.

theconversation.com

Speaking of cutouts nearly every nation discriminates against the poor. Thankfully God knows this and helps. The latest trend among the rich is to have at least two passports. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/10/rich-americans-get-second-passports-citing-risk-of-instability.html# So step right up and buy a 5 million gold passport, USA connections required. But if you are poor with family in the USA, don't bother to apply as you will be rejected. Rich nation citizen, no visa required. Poor nation citizen, visa required, some as long as a two year wait for a tourist visa.

Many too question Melania Trump's immigration, which most would say is a cutout. You should know too that U.S. House and Senate members do push through immigration aids to certain constituents. Here is Senator Rubio and House member Crist getting a visa for a friend in three days.

How Members of Congress Play a Personal Role in Immigration Cases

A look at private bills, how they work, and how they are changing under the Trump administration

www.voanews.com

Melania Trump’s sketchy immigration history, explained

If a new Associated Press report is right, Melania Trump herself was once an “illegal” immigrant.

www.vox.com

So some tough issues with a nation's immigration policy. I pray God's heart and will for us all.

 

[wing2000]

No, these people had full opportunity to do rhe right thing and decided not to.

I do agree the Coast Guard member made a choice to pursue a relationship and ultimately marry a woman whose work visa had expired years later. It's possible that she had never told him until recently or he simply didn't appreciate the effort it would take to rectify her immigration status. In any case, that was a choice he made.

The Coast Guard become aware of her status when the couple applie for on-base housing. Apparently, a routine background check was performed and her record was flagged for her immigration status. Had they not applied for the base housing, who knows if or when her status would have been discovered.

 

[BCP1928]

I do agree the Coast Guard member made a choice to pursue a relationship and ultimately marry a woman whose work visa had expired years later. It's possible that she had never told him until recently or he simply didn't appreciate the effort it would take to rectify her immigration status. In any case, that was a choice he made.

The Coast Guard become aware of her status when the couple applie for on-base housing. Apparently, a routine background check was performed and her record was flagged for her immigration status. Had they not applied for the base housing, who knows if or when her status would have been discovered.

No, you don't get it. Anybody who is in the country illegally for whatever ostensible reason must be part of an evil conspiracy by the left to contaminate the purity of our cultural institutions. You may think that the woman's situation is the result of ignorance or carelessness about what is in fact a minor infraction rather than sinister intent. You would be wrong. You may even pretend to think that, but then you would be part of the conspiracy, too.

 

[Richard T]

No, you don't get it. Anybody who is in the country illegally for whatever ostensible reason must be part of an evil conspiracy by the left to contaminate the purity of our cultural institutions. You may think that the woman's situation is the result of ignorance or carelessness about what is in fact a minor infraction rather than sinister intent. You would be wrong. You may even pretend to think that, but then you would be part of the conspiracy, too.

"Contaminate the purity of our cultural institutions" What purity is that? White? Or the mix that America has had since it adopted or conquered new lands, brought slaves over and mixed cultures? Also, in adopting this view which is counter to what Reagan and that era of Republicans thought, how would you address the population decline that will result and the many problems that such a scenario would bring? I would say your logic is flawed too because legal immigration still exists and I would argue that to be consistent it too would "contaminate the purity of our cultural institutions" though of course I do not accept that premise.

 

[BCP1928]

"Contaminate the purity of our cultural institutions" What purity is that? White? Or the mix that America has had since it adopted or conquered new lands, brought slaves over and mixed cultures? Also, in adopting this view which is counter to what Reagan and that era of Republicans thought, how would you address the population decline that will result and the many problems that such a scenario would bring? I would say your logic is flawed too because legal immigration still exists and I would argue that to be consistent it too would "contaminate the purity of our cultural institutions" though of course I do not accept that premise.

I think what is meant by that is not specifically about race but about protecting the anglo-Protestant culture* from corrupting influences as it is normative for all Patriotic Americans. Altogether a banal conspiracy theory based on ordinary nativist bigotry.

*"The vessel in which Christ's Gospel is to be brought to the world" as one of our conservative colleagues here put it so charmingly.