Why The Left’s ‘Moral Arguments’ On Open Borders Are Far From Biblical

Harbingers Daily ^ | 2/12/24 | Joseph Backholm

[Roman_War_Criminal]

When the Supreme Court ruled recently that the federal government could remove razor wire on the border between Texas and Mexico that was put in place by the state of Texas, it set off a legal, political, and even theological debate about the federalism and border policy. Despite the ruling, the state of Texas has said they will continue installing the wire, and several states have decided to send state troopers and members of the National Guard to Texas to help the effort.

Yes, the federal government generally has had jurisdiction over what happens at our federal border, but we’ve never faced a situation where the federal government was trying to tear down border barriers to make it easier to illegally enter the country. These are unique times. As Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) has pointed out, if the Constitution was intended to force states to accept illegal entry into their borders from foreign governments, there’s no way it would have been ratified.

Since the Supreme Court decision, a political debate has erupted in Washington, D.C. An allegedly bipartisan bill called for the border to be closed if more than 5,000 people per day illegally cross the border, but any support that may have once existed for the bill fell apart the moment it became public.

Within Christian circles, the political debate has been happening in tandem with a theological debate where some appear to be arguing that allowing open borders is a matter of Christian love. On X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Carlos A. Rodriguez, said, “100% of migrants beyond the razor fences were created in the image of God.” The implication appears to be that image bearers of God should generally be allowed to do what they want to do, but he can’t possibly mean that.

[Da Coyote]

The left has a moral argument?
Could’ve fooled me.
Best to ask them to describe it...and watch the thundering silence.

[Dilbert San Diego]

We often hear the nation of immigrants argument too.

So because we are a nation of immigrants , why does that mean we have to allow illegal aliens? We are a nation of immigrants whose ancestors came to this country legally.

[Skwor]

There is a legal process for immigration, it is well known.

Those who twist God’s word for illegal immigration are literally justifying breaking the law, a law which is not in contradiction to God’s natural law. That is not a Christian act.

Any can follow the law and emigrate to this country, as such what those advocates are doing is supporting breaking the laws for personal gain, they are not being compassionate, they are committing sin.

[lapsus calami]

 

 

Settlers - a nation of settlers. Don't recall the native American indians having an immigration bureau for processing new arrivals. That typically strips the mental gears of snowflakes when I drop that on them.

 

 

[elpadre]

“...We are a nation of immigrants whose ancestors came to this country legally....”

My understanding going back 70 years (I’m in my nineties) is that the word, “immigrant” meant a foreign national residing in the US legally. These are the “green card” holders.Those here with visas or entered illegally were not to be called “immigrants.” The word is reserved for those permanent residents.

What happened??

[Obadiah]

If this invasion is a moral issue, then why aren’t people demanding all countries surrender their borders? Who established nations? No this is genocidal chaos straight from the author of chaos.

I want everyone on the record as to their position on the surrender of our national borders. It is a certainty that there will be a terrorist attack. And if it’s not a kinetic terrorist attack then it will certainly be a grid attack or a cyber attack or some type of attack that will cause significant consequences for this country. So all these politicians, people and “charitable” organizations facilitating this mass invasion will directly have blood on their hands and should be held directly accountable.

[Paal Gulli]

"...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...."

If your bible reads, "Thou shall not kill," it's defective. You should take it back and get one with a correct transliteration of the original Hebrew, not the mistranslation foisted on humanity by St. Jerome.

[AZJeep]

So because we are a nation of immigrants , why does that mean we have to allow illegal aliens? We are a nation of immigrants whose ancestors came to this country legally.

______________

Yes. And that was before welfare.
In old times, countries (even in Europe) were actively pursuing immigration.
Without welfare, every immigrant was potential taxpayer and not at all burden on society. If he would be, he would just starved to death>
Since welfare, immigrants are very often burdens on society!

[Jonty30]

The proper and Biblical response to foreigners is to help them in their country, not take them into America.

[lepton]

When the Supreme Court ruled recently that the federal government could remove razor wire on the border between Texas and Mexico that was put in place by the state of Texas,

---

The Supreme Court made no such ruling. Instead, they merely pronounced a stay prohibiting the federal government from removing the wire void, and did so without further comment or explanation. They did not say that the federal government could remove or cut the wire, nor did make any ruling on what Texas could or could not do in this regard.