Does America have a Biblical mandate for secure borders?

Pastor Michael Jordon of Burke UMC--Homer UMC answers the question Christians nationwide are asking.

View Pastor Jordon's Answer

View Additional Following Opinions on Immigration Reform from the Biblical Perspective: 

The 'Sojourner' Argument: Scripture texts often misused by religious communities to advocate
high immigration

by Rev. Edwin Childress*
2001

One Christian Perspective on the Immigration Reform Debate

by Steve Cable

Probe Ministeries

The Apostle Paul said, emphatically, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (I Tim. 5:8).  Does "not providing for his own" include not providing protection? Of course it does.

Sanctuary Movement: Personal Compassion VS National Security

By Harry R. Jackson

May 14, 2007

Last Friday, I was ushered into the Washington studios of the FOX Network to respond to a special segment of the O’Reilly Factor which described a new immigration reform campaign called the “Sanctuary Movement.” Based on a movement that challenged United States policy in Central America in the 1980s, several religious congregations in New York and other cities announced a campaign last Wednesday to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants who face deportation. I stated that I didn’t agree with either the biblical or political reasoning behind this movement. The acts of civil disobedience involved in offering sanctuary for illegal aliens seem to have an overt political motivation.

This week, the Senate plans to explore the issue of immigration once again. Although the nation remains divided over this issue, the all-knowing leadership of the Washington elite is pushing to give the resemblance of progress. Both religious and political liberals want to rush the process of arriving at workable solutions to this complex problem. I, however, believe that the nation should slow down and develop the correct approach to this multi-faceted challenge. We need to discuss this more. The average American does not understand the complexity of the immigration process or the implications of major structural change to the way things are currently being done. I am saddened by the pain of deportation. In fact, I have had several members of my local congregation deported during the last decade, yet I maintain that the problems of immigration must be solved with both compassion and wisdom. Both our hearts and our heads must be engaged in fixing this problem.

Immigration is the second most important issue of the next two years - after the War in Iraq. The reason for its importance is five-fold:

·  1. The cost of many American products and services will go up as “illegals” are prosecuted or given amnesty.

·  2. Domestic security can be breached by Al Quaeda and other groups.

·  3. Hardened criminals and gang members are crossing the borders along with eager workers seeking a better life.

·  4. The availability of meaningful work for minorities and other Americans at the lower end of the economic spectrum will shift dramatically based upon the direction taken.

·  5. A dynamic increase in the number of Hispanic voters could shift the balance of power in U.S. politics.

Last week’s arrest of six Muslims charged with plotting to attack Fort Dix further underscores the importance of the immigration problem. The three Duka brothers were not only Islamic extremists inspired by Al Queada; they were illegal aliens who had broken many domestic laws. The fact that these men could move so freely in America is of great concern to me. In fact, no one knows whether people like the Sanctuary Movement could eventually harbor these kinds of ideological warriors in their churches. When misguided compassion of liberal churches defies the law of the land without understanding the cost to our nation, they feel good about their acts of kindness but they may create more damage in the long run.

Inherently, I have a problem with people who have come to our nation of their own free will, demanding rights and acceptance within our borders. The Sanctuary Movement and other liberal groups seemingly ignore the rule of law and are determined to establish their own unequal approach to national justice.

Essentially, this movement is calling for an amnesty program for those who have broken many laws within our country. Their justification for their actions is their controversial interpretation of the Scriptures and irrational references to the civil disobedience of the Civil Rights Movement.

There is a major difference between these illegal aliens and the black community of the ‘50s and ‘60s. First of all, Martin Luther King, Jr. and other black leaders of his day were firm believers in the U.S. Constitution. Many were veterans of our Armed Services and citizens of our nation. They legitimately questioned their second class status, which was based upon America’s unwillingness to follow through with the promises of liberty which were granted in the 14th Amendment. These civil rights warriors were not American “wannabes” demanding their place at the table. The Civil Rights Movement of the ‘50s and ‘60s consisted of people whose families had been citizens of the nation for nearly 100 years. In addition, their courageous acts of civil disobedience were totally peaceful, despite the fact that many of their family and friends had been lynched, tortured, and oppressed in a myriad of appalling ways.

My intent is not to minimize the pain and suffering of the illegal immigrant community. I am, however, saying that this group does not have a clear mandate for the demonstrations and rallies that are currently being conducted around the nation. To many Americans, it seems as though our arms are being twisted by an impatient group that has refused to follow America’s immigration policies.

In conclusion, let me reiterate that immigration reform is the second most significant issue on our political plate. I call upon conservatives to develop a clear approach to the problem. I personally plan to help mobilize evangelical Christians, including the black church, to take an anti-amnesty stand while vigorously protecting our borders.

(CAPS Website Article Link)

By Randy Alcorn
July 2007

So often, and it seems with increasing frequency, the discussion of foreign immigration into America is drenched in either bile or tears.  The bile typically comes from those pro-immigration forces whose accusations of racism against those who oppose illegal immigration has, by now, become so tedious that it has lost its impact as an invective. This unworthy tactic is generally recognized for what it is—a rhetorical refuge for those who cannot sustain their position with reason, and so, employ defamation in an attempt to diminish the credibility of their debate opponents.

As Americans make it more apparent that they are firmly opposed to the continuing invasion of their nation by millions of foreigners, misguided do-gooders, along with those vested interests benefiting from immigration, having failed to convince the public by using bile, now use tears, and attempt to sway American opinion by appealing to the heart.

How many times have we heard our elected officials, including our current president, defend and excuse illegal immigrants as hard-working folks just trying to take care of their families? How often does the mainstream media, especially TV and the larger daily newspapers, present stories passionately portraying the plight of illegal aliens? These stories have the tone of charity fund-raisers rather than objective news reports.

Recently, NPR, the public radio network, broadcast a story about a village in southern Mexico where nearly the entire population of young males, leaving their families behind, had left the village to seek work in the United States. In interviews with several of the wives of these men, we learn that there is little work in Mexico, and what work can be found does not pay enough to support the family. Most of the remaining males too young to make the trek north tell the interviewer that they also plan to sneak into the U. S. just as soon as their parents allow them to make the trip.

The broadcast then goes on to describe the pitiable living conditions and depths of impoverishment in the Mexican village. The audience is told that this is just one of many villages experiencing the same sad situation—a situation that forces most of the villages’ able-bodied males to seek work in America so that they can send money back to their families in Mexico. 

The tenor of this broadcast is somber and obviously intended to elicit the empathy of the audience. Is the media barrage of such emotive stories intended to make Americans feel guilty about not sharing their nation with any and all desperately poor foreigners aspiring for a better life in America? Is the plight of immigrants or would be immigrants depicted in these stories presented as justification for their illegal migration to America? Are Americans then simply expected to erase their nation’s borders, ignore their nation’s immigration laws, and pardon millions of alien lawbreakers so that impoverished people from other countries can provide for their growing families?

In the search for truth and solutions, maudlin emotionalism is a poor substitute for objective reason. The first question that should be asked by responsible journalists is why are these people having families before they have the means to support them?  And, why, having made that imprudent decision should Americans feel obligated to tolerate illegal immigration so that irresponsible procreators can support their families?  The solution to poverty and over-population in the world is not to squeeze the world’s impoverished masses into America; the solution is responsible population control.

There is no universal right to procreate. Those individuals and those nations that populate beyond their resources are not owed support by everyone else. Human procreation is not an unavoidable act of nature. It is a choice, and we, as an intelligent species capable of rational judgment, are responsible for our choices. 

Those pursuing a direction of guilt along a trail of tears leading away from rationality, remind us that Americans consume far more resources per capita than any people on earth. That mathematical quotient, of course, becomes more pronounced as human populations in the impoverished and mismanaged nations of the world continue to increase. Are Americans expected to retreat to a less affluent lifestyle so that millions, even billions, of additional humans can share a finite planet? What is the benefit of continuing to add more people to an already overtaxed eco-system?  And, if America’s higher consumption of resources is a concern, why then import millions of immigrants to America who will then consume more resources than they would have in their native lands? 

America can no longer absorb the world’s teeming masses seeking to improve their lives. There are simply too many who want to come here. Nor should Americans feel guilty about being Americans. And, while we should feel grateful for our good fortune, we cannot afford to ignore the plight of our less fortunate fellows.

In considering the plight of much of the earth’s human population, however, compassion without logic is simply disaster delayed. Attempting to accommodate increasing numbers of people by reducing share of resources is a short-term measure, not a solution. Stabilizing, then reducing human population levels around the world while helping those willing to help themselves by developing their own economies and insisting on good government in their homelands is a solution.

Official American foreign policy over the past seven years has not been rational in the matter of human population growth. But, then most of the common sense in America is not found in Washington DC.

Randy Alcorn is a Senior Writing Fellow for Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), www.capsweb.org, and can be reached at info@capsweb.org or randyalcorn@verizon.net.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

JEWISH RESOURCES:

DR. STEVEN STEINLIGHT, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Immigration Studies

Click HERE to view Coppell Republican Club Presentation - May 6, 2010 (Dallas, TX May 5 - 12, 2010 Events)

Dr. Steinlight is one of America’s leading experts on immigration policy and offers much needed

clarification on the "Religious Perspectives of Immigration Reform." 

(Click HERE to View Dr. Steinlight's BIO).

Religous leaders across Texas are demanding "comprehensive" immigration reform and using

scripture & the pulpit to push their agendas for flooding the nation with millions of third world immigrants.   

Dr. Steinlight offers additional insight in to the interpretation of our religious text. 

Click HERE to view video of National Press Club - Washington, D. C. event & RELATED TRANSCRIPT

relating to religous perspectives of immigration reform. 

A recent Zogby poll finds that most self-identified Catholics, mainline Protestants, born-again

Protestants,& Jews do not support the view of the "open borders" religous leaders.