4 votes

Why Are Church Groups Supporting Amnesty and Illegal Immigration

What baffles me is that I have been noticing that church groups are coming to rescue to some of illegal immigration, and in the past I have noticed some support from church or religious groups supporting amnesty. Can someone point out why? I am in the mindset that church groups are in aligned with the right when it comes to issues of immigration.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Definition of Sojourn according to Webster...

to live somewhere TEMPORARILY -N. a brief stay; visit.

The bible recognizes the existence of nations and Jesus advocated obeying the law of the land.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/obeying_the_law

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Everyone on earth is a sojourner

and only live upon it temporarily for a brief stay or visit. Perhaps the element missing in the definition you proposed is allegiance. I would also reiterate bible passages on the topic of migration do not just include sojourners. There are stories in the old testament and new where people are commanded to leave one place and go to another. Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with Jesus to intentionally evade any law killing infants. There are passages that call for the establishment of sanctuary cities.

Bible passages about migration lead to one place that is easy to recognize without much additional thought ... the bible wholly condones migration and fleeing persecution. No passage in the link you cited uses the expression "law of the land." The law referred to in biblical versus refers to law that originates from god not man. The only source of law in any biblical context is god. Nations do not seek to enforce god's law. In a biblical context, it is the source of law that makes law just or unjust. Nations enforce man's law. It requires some thinking to sort out passages like 'there is no authority except from God,' 'be submissive to rulers and authorities, no one is justified before God by the law,' 'render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's,' and 'you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.'

Should it be said a man who claims to be an authority or ruler that is elected by a nation of ungodly people is appointed by god or should it be said a man who claims to be an authority or ruler that is elected by a nation of ungodly people is no authority or ruler appointed by god?

Should it be said one who is a terror to good conduct is a ruler or should it be be said one who terrorizes good conduct is no ruler appointed by god?

"...and Jesus advocated obeying the law of the land."

When said law does not conflict with God's law.

Christ's two commandments are the law as written into our hearts. Anything on paper which contradicts the law of love is meant to be broken. I wonder how strongly you believe in "obeying the law" when it's gun or raw milk laws we're talking about? Immigration is a fully victimless crime and laws which criminalize it are null and void.

Immigration is not a crime

The fact that we live in a welfare state complicates this issue far beyond contradicting the law of love.

"When said law does not conflict with God's law." - Where does he say this ?

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

"The fact that we live in a welfare state"

I don't accept this as a permanent fact of life. Why don't you join with me in helping to abolish the welfare state? According to your reasoning we should deport everyone living in the USA, because, after all, we all consume government benefits! That would save 20 to 50 times the federal money spent on immigrants. Boy, you're a piker!

I don't accept that the welfare state is permanent either,

eventually it will collapse under its own weight. What is it that you are doing to help abolish it? Perhaps I may join you.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Although I have run for poltical office before,

I no longer consider that an effective method for me to promote liberty as I am not a supremely socially aware person. Actually I am quite the nerd.

I fear you may be right, that it will collapse under its own weight, and that what arises afterward may not be anything close to liberty.

My recommendation to every advocate of liberty is to be consistent in what you advocate, and always, when explaining liberty positions to someone who is not aware of the whole picture yet, reach them on their level, and explain how liberty would make their life better. I sincerely believe that liberty helps every honest person prosper. To paraphrase David Friedman -- "In this system, honesty becomes a private good, while dishonesty becomes a public good." I don't go so far as to agree with Harry Browne that you should appeal strictly to self interest when discussing liberty with others, I think principle is important.

I don't believe simply supporting political candidates will do the trick, as the game is inherently rigged. I believe education is the key. I have my doubts about Rand Paul, but, I may give him a donation, as just think about what an explosion of interest in liberty concepts the publicity of his campaign would generate. The ideas are out there on the internet. If he somehow got the Republican nomination, every website with the word libertarian, liberty, or freedom in its search parameters would see doubling or tripling of its traffic.

If you want to run for office, I would recommend it as a good experience for anyone, even if you are not very political. At the very least it teaches you a lot about yourself and your strengths and weaknesses. Or perhaps start a blog. Whatever writing talents you have will be honed with every additional word.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be so long winded.

Thanks for the reply, honestly.

but I really do not see myself running for office or what good I could do in promoting liberty as I truely believe most people prefer security over liberty anyway. But I commend you for your efforts in doing so, and like you I feel that what arises after an economic collape may not be anything close to liberty (I am quite certain things will get much worse), although many here feel that once the system collapses "we" can then take over and remake the country into what it once was. Those in control have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.

Although I believe in education, there are too many who prosper from, and who rely on the current system for any significant changes to take place. And in these circumstances liberty is their enemy as it goes against their self interest, but one can still try. I do think I have made significant progress in getting friends and relatives to realize that there is no substantive difference between the two political parties. As for Rand, he is not his father but he is better than the lesser of two evils. If he runs for president I will vote for him.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

"as I truely believe most people prefer security over liberty

anyway."

I felt the same way 37 years ago when I first became a liberty activist. But such an attitude is defeatist. Back then I could not even imagine the things happening in the liberty movement today with the Ron Paul campaign and the explosion of intellectual interest in liberty.

Think of how the Soviet Union, a socialist empire far more totalitarian than the present US, ceased to exist without a single shot being fired. If it could happen there, it could happen here.

What we've always got to remember is that we have the truth on our side, and, a fundamental law of the Universe is "truth expands, falsehood contracts". It honestly can't be any different, as every day we live we learn new things about reality. Once it was thought that physics was deterministic. Now we know that is not true, that, in fact, the entire Universe is conscious, and may have purpose, as well.

Perhaps you are a young man, I don't really know. I am, little by little, getting older and feebler. But I still see the possibility of the end of the current system in my lifetime and the beginning of something better. Once the entire world sees the lies of the State exposed, nobody will ever again entrust any institution with the powers we have given our governments. Even if they are a little bit collectivist in thought, it will simply not occur to them to create such unaccountable power again.

This is not about one election, or even elections at all. It is about a paradigm shift from left vs right to liberty vs tyranny. People who once saw themselves as political adversaries will find common cause in opposing tyranny and supporting liberty. The pieces of the puzzle are there to be put in place. It is a race between the power of the State and the the knowledge of the market. Who will come out the winner? I am not a prophet so I can not answer. All I know is it will be interesting.

"Immigration is not a crime"

Unless you are willing to put up with waiting lists and quotas which, frankly, make it absolutely impossible that most Mexicans can ever immigrate legally, yes, IT IS A CRIME!

Where does he say

"yes, help the Nazis guide the Jews, communists, Gypsies, handicapped, and other enemies of the state into the gas chambers?" It is, after all, the law of the land!

Why shouldn't they?

"Government" law and holy scripture are two different things, which adhere to two different purposes. Just like some presidential candidates DON'T address certain issues - because they should be "STATE" issues - NOT federal. Religion has no quarrel with these people. They are "illegal" in the eyes of the government - not God.

Religion is worldwide - it has no bounds/borders and is not limited by different countries' laws - whatever they may be. They follow certain laws/rules dictated by their "chosen" one as opposed to a governments rule/law.

For Christians it would be WWJD? Do you think Jesus would stand in front of and block a bus of mothers and children to protect a "GOVERNMENT" law? Remember, He abode to a higher law.

I personally agree with both "mwstroberg"'s, and "bcfast"'s comments below.

It's All About the Benjamins

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Probably for the same reason the Democratic and Republican

establishment support it, along with major corporations and the wealthy elite.

They will allow this problem to continue and grow, in order to provide the "solution".

Wake up and smell the coffee.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Research the refugee scam...

..it's modern day human trafficing.

The religious groups (from Mainline Christian to Hebrew and a few other outliers) get about ~$2000 a head for placing a refugee on the dole in some community. It's a billion dollar industry the tax payer pays for.

The Chamber of Commerce sorts just see it as more fed dollars coming to some area to be spent on services.

Longtime Internet Poster

There would be no

"human trafficking" if these laws did not exist. Someone who wished to move to the US would just walk, bicycle, drive, fly or sail across the border. Nobody dying of asphyxiation in cattle cars. Think about it -- advocates of legal restrictions on peaceful immigration are accomplices to murder. These immigration laws have caused deaths as tragic as the Iraq Embargo. But, then again, I guess you agree with Madeleine Albright -- "I think it's worth it."

so you stand with Lindsey, McCain and Albright...

...on immigration and against property rights and Rothbard/Hoppe.

But pose like some humanitarian liberal--too funny.

Longtime Internet Poster

Even if it were true that I agreed with them on this one issue

(which is not true -- NONE of them support open borders), I am sure I could find you in agreement on something with Hitler if I had to (Do you like dogs and children? Hitler liked dogs and children. Nazi!).

I am an absolute free market libertarian. It is YOU who do not support property rights. If I, as a native born American citizen owned a road which crossed the border, and I allowed a Mexican to cross the border on it into this country, what right do you have to use violence (even if cloaked in law) to stop me? What about MY property rights? Do they not count?

The same arguments can be made analogously for housing, medical care, education, etc. If I, exercising MY free market property rights, wish to associate with a Mexican immigrant in any fashion, economically or not, what right do you have to use government violence against me to stop me from doing so?

Legally open borders is a facet of the free market. Your socialistic, statist, violent policies of legal restrictions on peaceful immigration run counter to the free market. Why do you wish to empower the State? I wish to empower the people.

LOL--you are the authentic "libertarian" property rights guy...

...and Rothbard and Hoppe are not--who strenuously disagree with you.

What a comical version of a libertarian you are...

Longtime Internet Poster

You don't know your Rothbard

Rothbard would have eliminated all immigration laws, if given the chance. In one of his strategy statements, he explicitly rejected the notion of endorsing any particular order of destatization. He opposed all coercive government laws, and believed anytime a law could be repealed, it should be, regardless of any other forms of tyranny existing in the system at the time.

Honestly I recommend for anarcho-capitalists to take their cue from Rothbard, not Hoppe. I do not respect Hoppe at all, and consider him to be somewhat of a crank. He uses "property rights" as a magic wand to justify his own prejudices, of which there are many, and expects the expression to disarm opponents, even though what he is proposing is not actually defense of property rights but rather defense of State power.

Try thinking for yourself for a change, and actually read up on what libertarians say.

LOL, Rothbard was against coerced open borders...

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_1.pdf

Go to page 6.

What a fraud you are, save I agree take your cue from Rothbard and, unlike you, reject McCain, Graham, Obama, Clinton, Perry, Rubio...

Longtime Internet Poster

LOL--you reject Rothbard but pretend not to...

You sir, are a joke.

Rothbard and Hoppe are correct--you are wrong.

Longtime Internet Poster

I have not seen any good 'reasoning' yet.

I've seen $ dollar signs, I've seen "collection plate", and other cryptic words, but not one single well thought out reasonable answer. In fact I've been waiting for two days now for someone, anyone to question what is meant below by saying it's about "passing the collection plate".

I realize that all these immigrants must be loaded down with loose cash, so I'm guessing that some of you believe the churches want in on the action? These people must be different because I was led to believe that they were broke and trying to leave a bad situation. Do any of you church haters realize how much money is spent to feed the hungry? You spend all of your time putting down churches and the people who attend them, but you never think about what they accomplish together do you? Through the FREELY giving of people, churches and organizations they support, are able to feed untold masses of people each day. These illegal immigrants will only increase the burden on churches trying to feed the hungry.

Who in their right mind would think that churches want more illegal aliens in the country simply because it will somehow make them more money? Do you people even think before casting idiotic stones like these? The mantra "All churches are greedy money machines" is getting a little played out. You might hear of some bad churches who dupe people, but you couldn't care less about the 99.99% of churches who are barely scratching by (as they should be) and yet still fulfilling their mission to help the poor. Whether illegal or not. Remember, these people are doing what they believe Christ would want them to do, not what you would want, nor any political parties would want.

It is not about getting their

It is not about getting their money but about growing their "flock" in a country where Christianity is on a decline.

That makes

absolutely ZERO sense.

That's a pretty outlandish

blanket accusation. You actually believe most churches give to the poor so as to increase their membership? That it can't ever have anything to do with a spirit of charity?

So its not about gaining new

So its not about gaining new constituents for their church, right?

The majority of

those who support amnesty for illegals are Judas Churchs, who tend to focus on greed rather than teaching the the Word. That said, the State uses the threat of pulling their 501C3 status, and sending in the Tax Cheka to audit them, which would take their luxer possession,they tell their parishners, 'God wants them to have'.

Back in about 2003, when I was still following the apostate evangelical Zionists, they switched from being against illegal immigration, as it took jobs away from Americans in need, to quickly switching to amnesty for those who are here. I would bet it was that evil SOB Rove, who conned them into the statist position and told them if they wanted the President to work to sell the 'gay marriage' and 'anti-abortion' amendments, they better support a 'pathway to citizenship'. Now, that the Dems control the Oval Office, they use the LBJ created 501C3 threat against them, to force them to comply.

In order to have a Contitutional Republic, there must be sovereignty in the nations borders. By these Christian leaders supporting the amnesty of those who disrespect this sovereignty, they destroy the Constitutional protections, that provide for their freedom of religion.

Thomas Jefferson warned about immigrants destroying our Republic and it Constitution when he stated.
"They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an un- bounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent, distracted mass."

Jesus didn't give a crap what

Jesus didn't give a crap what piece of soil you were born on, we are all God's children, and I agree.

I don't feel any better about a child killed in a drone strike in Pakistan, than I do if it happened in Oregon.

On independence day yesterday, I was thinking what a stupid small minded tribal celebration it was. God bless Murika and no one else.

I don''t technically support

amnesty and "illegal" immigration. What I support is LIBERTY, for ALL of God's children. In the society I envision "illegal" immigration would not even be theoretically possible, as all peaceful immigration would be legal. You supporters of legal restrictions on peaceful immigration are the ones who support illegal immigration, as the laws of supply and demand and human nature make such illegal immigration both possible and inevitable in your desired system.

There are many people involved in Church activities who follow Christ's commandment to love others as themselves. These people apply that to immigrants, as well as to all other people. Why should Christians not support freedom on every issue? Did not God give us all free will? How are we going to exercise free will if the State limits our freedom to act according to our consciences?

As a Christian, I would gladly and humbly help an "illegal" immigrant in any way I could, be it with charity, or a job, or just a friendly word of support. Open your heart to God's love and you will find you don't see other people as threats, but rather, as human beings. The enemy is not people, but the Anti-Christ State.