For background on the religious liberty implications of the SC Anti-Refugee Bill, S997, I wrote about it here.
How Religious Liberty Dies. S997 just effectively passed the SC Senate by a vote of 39-6. Churches and religious organizations will be held civilly liable for any crime committed in the future by refugees that they helped place and support in South Carolina in the present. 6 out of 8 co-sponsors of the bill are Southern Baptists. They know not what they do. Or, they do and don’t care. This is unheard of. Churches have a biblical mandate to minister to these people. These are the people fleeing violence and abuse. The two organizations placing them (World Relief and Lutheran Services) are religious organization. Many of them are Christians fleeing religious persecution. They are applying this to all refugees. The individual board members of religious organizations can also be sued, according to what I have been told. This is a clear religious liberty violation and those who say they care about such things when it comes to cupcakes, but do not care about this are woefully uninformed at best. This is how liberty dies. And, this will do NOTHING to make South Carolina safer. It will only spread fear and make it impossible for churches to help refugees, which is the plan. If this passes, I fully expect this to spread to Alabama and other Southern states. Once the government starts telling churches that they can be sued for something that someone they minister to might do in the future, it will create such a chilling effect on the ministry of the church that it will shut down a great deal of work. And, if this precedent stands, do you not think that others will try and apply this to other issues to limit the ministry of the church? This isn’t coming from the Left. It is coming from the Right and is being motivated by fear.
The church is meant to be the bridge in society. Salt and light. The ones who step in and bring peace and help bring reconciliation. Blaming the church for the potential actions of someone that they tried to help but who refused the help and then turned to violence is a horrible move. And, holding the church civilly liable for the actions of someone that they had no control over is only meant to spread fear. It is ironic that as we fight against terrorism (which is the spreading of paralyzing fear through the threat of violence), we can engage in the same basic acts by spreading fear to those who might try and do good if those they help then turn to violence. It is the same basic approach.
All over the Bible Belt South, state laws are being drafted to make life miserable for refugees and immigrants so they will not want to come here. From 2011 with Alabama’s HB56 and Georgia’s anti-immigrants laws, to what South Carolina is doing now, all of these laws in some way end up targeting the church and those who would minister to immigrants and refugees in Jesus’ name. But, so many Christians do not notice the violation because they only think first about security. We are making a massive mistake here. This is how Jim Crow laws were developed – piece by piece until an unbreakable net was formed that separated people and caused massive devastation to individuals, families, churches, and society.
I will not sit by and watch while it happens again.
Alan,
I agree, that it is fear that is a major reason Christians seek security in man made laws instead of trusting in the Lord. And fear like that is also a manifestation of unbelief.
But it is also more than fear, it is the prospect that ‘them’ will lower our standard of living, cost us in at least tax rates rising.
It seems natural that like people assemble with like people, which of course leads to racism and discrimination, but the Christian should not be like the natural man, knowing that God’s family knows no color or racial or economic or cultural bonds.
Keep proclaiming the truth brother.
This law sound suspect in that it may have unintended consequences. I think the best solution to the Syrian refugee issue is to suspend it for a while until we can get a better handle on our immigration screening process. The danger of terrorists hiding themselves in the refugees is far too high.
Where the attackers in Brussell Syrian Refugees? (Really asking, I haven’t heard)
*Were
I have not heard that. Reports are that at least one in the Paris attacks came into Europe as a “Syrian refugee.” It has been stated by some that it has been known to be happening in Europe.
Like I said,
“At least one Syrian refugee who had recently entered Europe was among the seven terrorists who carried out the deadliest attacks in France since World War II, according to authorities.”
http://nypost.com/2015/11/15/two-syrian-refugees-among-seven-terrorists-in-paris-attacks/
No, neither the Belgian nor Paris attackers were refugees. They were Belgian and French nationals. But, even if they were, what has happened in Europe is totally different from what is happening here.
It is basically impossible for ISIS to intentionally navigate the Refugee Resettlement Process and end up in America. It is much more likely that European nationals could be radicalized and come here on a tourist visa for 90 days.
The refugees are the victims. And churches should minister to them.
Alan,
“It is basically impossible for ISIS to intentionally navigate the Refugee Resettlement Process and end up in America.”
What is the basis for your statement here Alan? That seems to go against what FBI director said last October.
No it does not. The FBI director said that he could not guarantee that no one would infiltrate it.
My position comes from understanding how the process works and looking at it objectively and recognizing that it would be impossible for an ISIS fighter to decide to enter a UN refugee camp and then be selected. He has no control over who gets selected. How can he begin to navigate that process intentionally?
Alan, can an ISIS fighter pose as a refugee and enter a UN refugee camp? If one can then you are putting a spin on this issue and you may not be looking objectively. If a member of ISIS can infiltrate a camp then he has in fact entered the first leg of the refugee resettlement process; it is from these camps our refugees are chosen. There is no guarantee, if ISIS can enter refugee camps, a member of ISIS will not be chosen.
There is minimal difference between entering our refugee resettlement process directly or entering a UN camp that people are chosen from to enter our resettlement process. As one familiar with the process, you have to know there is no way to vet the refugees from war-torn Syria. If one believes there are court houses and government buildings standing in Syria that are staffed with people that can shoot you a file with Achmed’s history they are delusional.
I believe your position on refugees can be defended by Scripture but is weakened if you are arguing there are no valid reasons to fear refugees entering America.
For the record, this law stinks and is setting a dangerous precedent.
Dean,
No, there is no way to guarantee anything. But, there are millions of refugees in these UN camps. Only around 2,500 have come to the U.S. It is a 13 step process. The odds of an ISIS fighter successfully navigating that 18-24 month, 13 step process are astronomically low. So low as to make it an absurd approach. It would be much easier to take advantage of other ways that up to 70 million people visit the U.S. each year. We won’t talk about that because there is too much money being made. It is much easier to blame refugees FROM the violence.
The greater risk lies elsewhere. That is all that I am saying.
But, this post is about the religious liberty issue in being free to minister to people that by every calculation and judgment are innocent victims of extreme violence and persecution.
Let me just say, my concern is to temporarily stop the refugee process until better screening is in place. A public policy issue, not a church issue. Others disagree.
Meanwhile, for any refugees here already, churches should minister to them.
That’s all. I apologize for getting the discussion off of the religious liberty issue related to this bill.
What is the objective standard for the quality of refugee vetting? Lots of people are saying we need to stop until we can do a better job of vetting. Well, how bad is our vetting now? Is there a score, or a rubric for how good or bad the vetting is? How much better does the vetting need to get? 5%? 15%?
From December:
“counterterrorism experts themselves say it’s impossible to thoroughly vet the Syrians seeking refuge in American cities. About that vetting process, FBI director James Comey said in October:
We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but [nothing will] show up because we have no record on that person.”
This is apples and oranges. ISIS doesn’t need to send people from Syria. They are recruiting in Europe among European nationals. All that they have to do is have a Euro national with a valid passport from the Schengen buy a plane ticket and in 8 hours they are in America. Using the Refugee Resettlement Program is just plain stupid when there are many other much easier ways to get in.
This simply shows that there are no certainties…but it does not give reason to keep out an entire ethnicity of people.
Missionaries working in Muslim countries often invite muslims into their homes, even when their wives and young children are there. One of those people could be a radical with ill-intent…but that possibility doesn’t mean they should never invite anyone in.
Andy, I don’t think my actual neighbor to my left, up the hill a little, has been called by God to the mission field and I don’t think I want to possibly put them in added danger.
So does this mean you would oppose anyone moving into your neighborhood who has not been thoroughly vetted to not have any past criminal record?
You left out the part about where he says they have gotten much better at this and they are reasonably confident that they are vetting properly.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/15/ted-cruz/ted-cruzs-claim-head-fbi-told-congress-they-cannot/
But, you miss the bigger picture. Why in the world would they go through the process of infiltrating the refugee resettlement process, when there is a very small chance of them even getting selected and it takes 18-24 months and there are 13 steps to it? It is the hardest way for anyone to get into the U.S. If you have a clean record, then why not try and come in through all of the other ways, even as a tourist.
Occam’s Razor applies here.
Thank you for this, Alan. The problem here is the idolization of safety and American nationalism over ministry to “the least of these.” We’ve let fear and not faith dictate our stance on these issues as Christians. What kind of testimony is this to the power of the resurrected Christ?
“The problem here is the idolization of safety and American nationalism over ministry to “the least of these.”
Well said.
I can’t speak for others on this, but I don’t think I idolize my and the safety of my family. Doing what I can, even through advocating good public policy, to protect my life and the lives of my family and my neighbors. That is biblical. I try not to break the 6th commandment when I can.
I’m going to play a little bit of devils advocate. There is no doubt that Scripture speaks of protector our families…or rather leader our families. But surprisingly, Scripture seems to speak more of advocating the widow, orphan, helpless and poor.
Now, If I were in Syria right now I would wanting to protect my family and I would want leave too. Probably to America. It’s proven that the majority of these people are helpless. I don’t want to be the one to deny the helpless Syrian woman who lost here husband in a bomb for the sake of my security. I just read a story about a refugee that was constituently raped by multiple men DAILY. She finally got a way and sought refuge. I want to be that country that helps that woman. I don’t want fear to stop me from doing so. And I want my wife and kids to want that as well.
Likewise, I read a great article that had really good facts and statistics that explained that it’s way easier for a terrorist to get into countries through other avenues than hiding among refugees. It’s actually a pretty rigorous process. I’ll try to remember where I found it.
Tyler I think that good, bible believing Christians can have some different views on how this issue should be treated. One thing I hope that someone with my view will not be trashed and vilified and it be intimated that I am somehow violating scripture or dishonoring Christ in my view. This is a complicated international issue. But i believe that there is a legitimate Christian position to close the US borders to some groups and perhaps to all groups, as a policy position.
Thanks for your contribution.
“One thing I hope that someone with my view will not be trashed and vilified and it be intimated that I am somehow violating scripture or dishonoring Christ in my view.”
I hope I didn’t do that because that was not my intention at all. We can discuss this as brothers 🙂
But we will probably not convince each other so we can agree to disagree (I do hate that phrase haha)
Tyler, no I did not think you were doing that. As I said, thanks for your contribution. But I have seen convos on this topic get pretty heated. But you were NOT doing that brother.
Les: I disagree. I think Christians with your view should be trashed and vilified. It has brought laws such as this in Alan’s post. Sorry but I am serious.
Tyler is correct in saying there are more passages concerning helping those in need. I do not see anywhere where protection is above that. Keith Green for example would agree.
I really think you have taken scripture out of context in order to justify your view Les.
Well trash and vilify away Debbie. That’s the Christian “fruit of the Spirit” thing to do, right?
Les: My honest answer to that accusation is yes, I believe it is the fruit of the Spirit. I believe it is who we are in Christ to help those in need, not turn them away due to fear or prejudices. On the other hand I do not believe your view to be the fruit of the Spirit. Wrong is wrong Les. I know that sounds harsh and it should. I feel strongly about this as a Christian woman and a human being.
Debbie, you need to read more carefully. I said,
“Well trash and vilify away Debbie. That’s the Christian “fruit of the Spirit” thing to do, right?”
I was NOT talking about helping those in need and its relation to the fruit of the Spirit. I was referring to your previous comment “I think Christians with your view should be trashed and vilified.”
I was a bit sarcastically pointing out to you the unChristian view to “trash and vilify” other believers. Read more carefully Debbie.
Les, Debbie, why don’t you two break this off for now and come back when you can have a civil and productive conversation. This is showing no promise of anything but an unproductive foodfight.
Will do Dave. Thanks for your wisdom.
“But i believe that there is a legitimate Christian position to close the US borders to some groups and perhaps to all groups, as a policy position.”
Sure there is.
To ISIS, Al Quaeda, and any other enemies who mean us harm.
But, to everyone, even the victims of these evil men? No. There is no Christian justification for that that I can see. I have never seen one.
Actually, you have to ignore Scripture to refuse refuge to victims of violence.
You aren’t making anyone safer by keeping out refugees, who are victims of violence.
If you want to keep America safer, go after tourist visas and our travel agreements with Europe. That would actually make a difference. Going after refugees solves nothing.
These are refugees who have been legally allowed into the country, correct? And SC is going to hold groups liable who help them? How about suing the federal government instead? Because it’s easier to sue churches than the federal government.
Let me guess, Trump won the primary in SC?
How soon before we remove the poem from the Statue of Liberty?
Bill Mac, taking any refugees into this country called the USA is not a biblical mandate. But as I said earlier, the law seems like it will have unintended consequences.
No, it’s not. But basic human decency is, not to mention traditional American values.
Amen Bill.
Bill Mac, then the arguments for taking in any refugees, including a group where at least one terrorist has infiltrated the group and made his way into Europe to conduct terrorism, should be on human decency and traditions. Not seemingly as a biblical mandate.
Les, the Paris attack was orchestrated by French and Belgian nationals. That is who planned it and led it. Plus, what has happened in Europe is TOTALLY different than the American situation when it comes to refugees. Totally.
Apples and oranges. Not even in the same ballpark.
Lee: see a comment I shared with another friend who was considering the possibility of a Biblical point of view.
First, I think it is important to consider what the text says.
(1) God is sovereign. Paul tells us in his sermon on Mars Hill that God “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods (when) and the boundaries (where) of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him” (Acts 17:26-27).
(2) The gospel reminds us that we too are foreigners in a land to which we don’t belong and compels us to take risk (in fact, risk everything) for the advance of the Kingdom to which we do belong (1 Cor. 15:1-22; 2 Cor. 11:23-27). We are able to rest in the fact that the one who has all authority over heaven and earth (Christ) is with us (Matt. 28:18-20). Such an encouraging truth.
(3) The text tells us to love the foreigners among us, even as we love ourselves, and especially to show hospitality to those without a home. We too once had no home (Lev. 19:34; Luke 10:25-37; Heb. 13:2; Matt. 25:31-46: Rom. 12:13; Luke 6:31).
(4) Beyond that, Christ actually does call us to love not just strangers in our community, not just our neighbors, but even to love our enemies, pray for those who persecute us so that they too might be sons and daughters of our Father (Matt 5:43-48; Rom. 12:20). Consider for a moment how Saul, a persecutor of the early church, became one of the greatest missionaries who ever lived. What if God were to bring members of ISIS to faith through our prayers and kindness towards them?
Second, we consider conventional wisdom, informed through the lens of scripture. Let me just quote directly from a helpful website (http://wewelcomerefugees.com/faq/):
“There is an enormous difference between the situation of asylum-seekers we are seeing arrive on European borders, and the relatively much smaller number of refugees who are admitted into the United States. While countries that are proximate to a refugee crisis may have significant numbers of asylum seekers arrive at their borders before any vetting can be done, those admitted through the U.S. Refugee Resettlement program go through a very thorough screening process prior to being admitted to the United States.
The U.S. can technically accept refugees through referrals from its consulates or in specially established cases from NGOs, but in practice the vast majority are referred by UNCHR. Most of these refugees are either living in refugee camps of in urban contexts outside of camps, and all will be coming from “countries of first asylum” in the Middle East–primarily Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, possibly also Egypt and Iraq. If a refugee reaches Europe, they would then file an asylum claim there, which would invalidate any claim to need the protection of the U.S. (if rejected by Europe, the U.S. could consider the case, but would be unlikely to make a different finding, as their standards are similar to European countries under the UN Convention on Refugees).
While the vetting and review process occurs, those refugees are living in that country of first asylum, whether in a camp or in a city and cannot be considered for entry to the U.S. until their case is finalized and approved.
This process involves the U.S. Departments of State, Homeland Security and Defense as well as the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center. The process generally requires at least 18 months and includes in-person interviews, biometric background checks, and interviews with third-persons who may have information about the individual being considered for resettlement to the U.S. Only a fraction of one percent of the world’s refugees are admitted for resettlement to the U.S. in any given year, so priority is given to those who are deemed to be most vulnerable, including a majority who are women or children. The vetting process for those being considered for refugee status is actually more stringent than that of any other category of visitor or immigrant to the United States. The U.S. refugee resettlement system continues to be a lifeline to desperate individuals fleeing terrorism. See the steps of the security screening process for refugees being admitted to the United States as provided by the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants: http://www.rcusa.org/…/Refugee%20resettlement%20….”
As you can see, all refugees who enter the U.S. already undergo a intensely scrutinized process of admittance to be resettled in the U.S. It would be highly unlikely for us to admit someone who has been radicalized or who has an intention of causing us harm. In fact, it would be much easier for a terrorist to enter via ANY other visa–i.e. work, tourist, student, etc. These other visas undergo far less scrutiny, though immigrants travelling to the U.S. through these other routes are still thoroughly vetted.
Also, consider listening to David Platt’s perspective on a biblical view of the refugee crisis. It could be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRa8HTtMT64
Who built America to begin with and why Les? How did any of us get here Les? I have German blood in me as do many Americans. My ancestors came for the very reason the Syrians came, to escape the Nazis but they were very German and I still pass on German traditions to my children that were passed on to me.
My father n ‘law did not speak English till he was in school. He spoke German.
Les,
What about the intended consequences of the law? The purpose of a law is to change behavior and the penalty or punishment for breaking that law add teeth.
So why a law prohibiting helping needy people? Doesn’t that prohibitation actually or greatly increase the likelihood that a refugee might seek inner peace from a terror group: displaced from home and country, and rejected again in the USA.
Mile, I do not know. Perhaps.
Sometimes fear is justified, but you cannot love what you fear. The more we fear the less we love. Our response to Muslims is exactly what ISIS wants and we are playing precisely into their hands. One day we are denying refugees. The next we are denying all Muslim immigrants. The day after that we are patrolling Muslim neighborhoods, and making them register with the government. Where will it end? I think we know.
I don’t think it’s fear Bill Mac. At least it’s not for me. It’s prudence and wisdom for family and my neighbor. See, Christians do have some responsibility for our neighbors.
You have a responsibility against bad people Les, not those innocents who need aid from ISIS. That is the difference. History repeating itself and history was not pretty.
And it has nothing to do with neighbors, this is a every man for himself venture. I don’t think you can spiritualize this Les. It should stick in each Christian’s throat to try and rationalize this point of view.
Hey Debbie. We are told to love our neighbors as ourselves. That certainly means to look out for their welfare. And it certainly includes our neighbors in South Carolina, Alabama, Missouri and wherever we live.
Les,
“We are told to love our neighbors as ourselves. That certainly means to look out for their welfare. And it certainly includes our neighbors in South Carolina, Alabama, Missouri and wherever we live.,” and
that includes the neighbors that our own culture despises, like in the parable of the good Samaritan.
This neighbor was not someone of his own culture, nor of his own neighborhood, thus it was not someone who resided wherever we live.
Certainly if Syrian refugees are allowed to come into the country, the possibility that one or some might do evil, even great evil, increases. And Americans could die.
The truth is, those Americans are going to die sooner or later.
There are many in our society that see their present lifestyle as a right and their own lives as their own possession. But as Christians, we know that God has promised His children what they need to live, not a lavish [by many standards] lifestyle. And that our lives are not our own. They and the lives of our unsaved fellow Americans belong to God.
So the question is: how do we treat the least of these? And those whose lives have been ravished by war, whose homes and towns and/or families are gone, these are the least of these. So we who have been blest, and there are many Christians in America who have been blessed greatly, are under the bonds of love to love the least of these which includes war refugees.
“The truth is, those Americans are going to die sooner or later.
There are many in our society that see their present lifestyle as a right and their own lives as their own possession. ”
Ironically, you have just spouted the revolutionary line from Lenin to Che. They did not view peoples lives as their own, either. You see yourself as having the right to announce what others should think/do or they are not in the party (Christians). You are talking purity of ideology that people must follow or they are bad….according to you.
Is this a new movement? Marxist Christianity? You are shamed until you agree?
Lydia: This is mind boggling to me that you would associate the teachings of Christ with this statement. Wow.
As Christians our lives are not our own. We belong to Christ and through the Holy Spirit which is in us we are different creations according to Paul. We certainly do not hold tight to anything. We aid and help those in need. Christ did no less in his ministry on earth.
That is the opposite of what you are attempting to do here. It’s scripture, which is our guide to obedience to Christ. Infallible, God breathed scripture.
Lydia: You personally have to do nothing to help refugees. Just don’t vote or advocate to bar those who are called to help them. Don’t vote or advocate that refugees are not allowed in this country which is built on refugees. The statue of Liberty. That is the message I want to get across.
Lydia,
The difference between Marxist ideology and what I said is that in Marxist ideology, the people’s lives belonged to the state, while in Christian theology, we are all creatures of the Creator, and thus our lives belong to Him. More so for those who know Him, and have been bought with a great price.
As to lifestyle, the USA has been wonderfully blessed by God, and most of its people live lavish lifestyles, especially as compared to most people of the world. One reason we were blessed is because we sought after God and His heart, which is to look after the least-of-these, which Debbie’s excellent reference to the Statue of Liberty encapsulates in part.
That as a country, we are turning farther and farther, and faster and faster away from God and His principles, it will come as no surprise to the wise that [and if] the hand od God was lifted off the land and the prosperity we have enjoyed turns to ever increasing drudgery.
So no dear, i am not telling anyone to tow a party line or be embarrassed, but rather that security and prosperity found outside of faith and obedience to God is a house built on the sand, and one that will fall, and great will be that fall.
And when our legislative bodies pass laws not based on the truth of the Bible, it seeks to construct a nation built not on the sure foundation but on that sinking sand. And we as Christians have a duty borne of love, not just to the refugees, but to our fellow Americans, to stand against such legislation.
Les, I’m sure you mean well, but if Christians in Nazi Germany took your approach none of them would have hidden Jews out of fear for the safety of their families. Of course many of them paid for this with their lives, but isn’t this the cost of discipleship? You mentioned caring for our neighbors, but wouldn’t Jesus see the refugee as our neighbor too? I’m not standing in judgement of you because I’m learning, growing and struggling with the ethics of Jesus too. When push comes to shove would I have given my life to protect a Jew in Germany or a refugee in the U.S.? I’d like to think so but don’t know for sure. However, accepting and caring for refugees just seems like something Jesus would do.
+
Scott, thanks to Dave. Without his + I may have not been reminded of your comments to me from earlier. I am, since nearly my last comment on this post trying to stay away from the inadvertent diversion from the bill to other things that I created.
Anyway, I think your analogy is not apples to apples. I’d like to think I would have made the decision to hide Jews in my home in Nazi Germany too. Even at great risk of life. But **I** would have made that decision. And for me only and **not** for my neighbor. I would not have thrust some Jews into his home and demanded that **he** put his life at risk. That would be for him to decide.
And is some peoples already here in the US were being run down to be killed, I would do what I could to help save their lives. I think me helping a fleeing person in my neighborhood or out on the street where I live and work is consistent with Christian theology, specifically the 6th commandment. But I’ll not demand my friends do as I do and I would not drop the fleeing person on their doorsteps.
This issue, refugees from other war torn countries, is a US government policy issue. I cannot find anywhere in scripture nor have I seen a good argument that says we as a country are obligated to transport those people, who are in a really bad situation, here to our neighborhoods. In this terror climate, the risk is too great IMH.
Perhaps a US government solution is to set up, along with NGOs, safe zones that are well protected where these poor people can be cared for nearer their homeland with the eventual goal/hope that they can be resettled when their homeland is safe again. Or at least much safer.
Alan, just wondering, was the title a subtle Star Wars reference?
“…with thunderous applause.”
ISO a fellow nerd
I wasn’t thinking that, but I remember the scene and it is definitely applicable. Good catch!
I see some of the concern in this bill that maybe interpreted the way Alan expresses.
Here is a link to the bill:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/bills/997.htm
I see two main purposes of this bill:
The state of South Caroline will not pay for resettlement.
The sponsor will have some responsibility for terrorist acts committed by their sponsored refuge and/or refuge that commits a murder.
It is definitely worth studying this bill. Thanks for bring it back up for review. I may not yet see all the issues you have brought up, so I’ll have to review it more thoroughly.
In some municipalities/states, parents can possibly be held liable for their dependent child’s actions in certain situations (such as property damage). It stands to reason that while a child’s actions are their own, the parent holds responsibility to supervise that child and prevent them from participating in actions that results in potential criminal and/or civil penalties. It is argued that while the child may not know any better due to their immaturity, the parents do have that knowledge of right and wrong, and thus can be held liable.
It could likewise be argued, that any group or entity that sponsors an immigrant into this country, bears responsibility in ensuring that that immigrant obeys the laws once here.
As it relates to registration, as a CCW holder in my state, I must notify both the county I am leaving and the county I am moving to within 30 days of any move. People with Drivers licenses at least have to update their home address with the government everytime they have to renew their DL’s. In this light I do not see what the problem is with any immigrant, refugee or not, having to keep the government informed when they move. Given the problem of over stayed VISA’s in this country, it seems logical that states have the right to enact laws to attempt an insurance that immigrants and refugees keep authorities up-to-date with where they are. For many immigrants and refugees who may struggle to adapt to this country, it then falls on their sponsors to assist them in these legal matters.
So all in all, I am not that sure on how this is an affront to religious liberty. Indeed, I believe that we all should bear responsibilities for our actions, whether personal or corporate. If a shepherd does not examine the “wild” sheep he lets into his flock, he could run the risk of letting in a wolf who is disguised as a sheep. It is one thing to be open to bringing in many many new sheep, it is another thing to be negligent. If a Christian organization sponsors a immigrant/refugee, and does such a poor job at examining that person that they let in a murder, or a rapist, or a full blown terrorist, then yes, they should be held responsible for their stupidity and their negligence.
I would suggest that everyone take a brief look to examine “strict liability” as it relates to tort and criminal law. I would argue that the seconds section of this SC law is based largely on the historical president of “strike liability”. A sponsor, failing to properly vet an immigrant/refugee, becomes a civil and/or a criminal infraction.
Now if you want to argue that a sponsor of an immigrant, including Christian based aid organizations, should not have to vet the people they sponsor, than that is a whole separate ball of ear wax.
No it isn’t. The Federal Government has already vetted them. They are legally admitted and approved. How in the world is Oak Run Baptist Church going to vet a refugee that the U.S. Government has already approved when they co-sponsor them with World Relief in the Upstate of South Carolina? That is ludicrous.
They co-sponsor so they can minister and love the refugee – not so they can control them or vet them or keep them in jail.
And, the religious liberty concern is because they are now liable for being sued if the refugee later decides on his own to engage in an act of violence. You are punishing a church for ministering to a man if he decides to do wrong at a later date. This is absurd and will cause ministry to shut down all over South Carolina, which is the goal.
The federal government, that is to say the FBI (and I believe I.C.E.) have said that it is impossible to properly vet many of these immigrants.
No. The former ICE director who testified said the system worked very well. He was ignored because it did not fit the narrative.
This bill also affects every refugee from anywhere – not just Syrians.
As for FBI Director Comey, here is what he really said:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/15/ted-cruz/ted-cruzs-claim-head-fbi-told-congress-they-cannot/
Politifact is about as “unbiased” as breitbart – but in the opposite direction.
Not true. Politifact has been shown to criticize both sides pretty equally.
The fact that they called Cruz on a false statement can’t be abrogated by appealing to their bias.
Cruz made a false statement. Maybe his info was bad. But he was wrong. If we care about truth we should tell it, not repeat what we know to be false.
My statement about politifact had nothing to do with Cruz statement as my assessment of them long, long predates this election.
Here’s an article from three years ago that demonstrates what I’m referring to…
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
You assume that my comments were written totally in defense of Cruz – even though they were not – I’ve dismissed politifact as biased toward pretty much all republicans/conservatives many moons ago.
Maybe your assumptions here are showing a couple of biases you’ve developed and fostered? 😉
Politifact should have fact checked Politifact own article.
FBI Director Comey states clearly and unequivocally you can you can’t check data you do not have. You cannot vet information that does not exist.
Quotes of FBI Director Comey taken from Politifact article.
“Could I certify to there being no risk associated with an individual?” he said. “The bureau doesn’t take positions on legislation, and we don’t get involved in policy decisions. But that practically would be impossible.”
“There is risk associated with bringing anybody in from the outside, but especially from a conflict zone like that. From the intelligence community’s perspective, as I said, I think we’ve developed an effective way to touch all of our databases and resources to figure out what we know about individuals. … I don’t think that’s a cumbersome process. My concern there is that there are certain gaps.”
“If someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home but we are not going to — there will be nothing show up because we have no record on that person,” he said, adding, “The good news is we are much better doing it than eight years ago. The bad news is, there is no risk-free process.”
“We have gotten much better as an intelligence community at joining our efforts and checking our databases in a way that gives us high confidence. If we have a record on somebody, it will surface. That’s the good news. … The challenge we face with Syria is that we don’t have that rich set of data. So even though we’ve gotten better at querying what we have, we certainly will have less overall. And so as I said to a question earlier, someone only alerts as a result of our searches if we have some record on them. That’s the challenge we face with Syria.”
Take away Politifact commentary what do you have? Big gaps in vetting.
But that practically would be impossible.”
My concern there is that there are certain gaps.”
The bad news is, there is no risk-free process.”
That’s the challenge we face with Syria.”
Thank you, John….without the commentary there is a totally different feel to his comments than some are trying to convey.
I watched part of his testimony to congress on CSPAN (I know I’m a weirdo for watching that stuff) and I came away with a clear feeling that our FBI director was pretty concerned about this.
SV,
They are not letting sheep into their flock.
They are helping the least of these.
And like every person, the least of these are sinners who need a savior.
If they are a wolf, they might avoid detection, even as many wolves always have throughout the history of the church.
Now I admit my ignorance, for i do not know if the helping support and place refugees is the same as sponsoring them. I was under the impression that the US government was going to bring 20,000 [I think that was the number] refugees into the states.
If that is so, and a church aids and helps those-already-here, then I hardly think that the church is sponsoring them, or that the church should have to vet them. The US government has already vetted them as best as it was able [so we hope].
But aiding and supporting those-already-here should not make them liable for any future crimes they may commit. In fact, it may reduce the number of crimes of those-already-here.
But passing a law that has as its penalties both civil and criminal ramifications for churches doing what their Lord and King has called them to do is religious persecution, and infringes on religious liberty.
The church is providing food and clothing and housing and job training, not GUNS and BOMBS.
“If a Christian organization sponsors a immigrant/refugee, and does such a poor job at examining that person that they let in a murder, or a rapist, or a full blown terrorist, then yes, they should be held responsible for their stupidity and their negligence.”
I wish you’d publish your guidelines by which you know who is a rapist, for example. Churches get into a lot of trouble these days when one of their staff members or volunteers turns out to be a rapist. Since you apparently know how to identify what future crimes people will commit, I think you could provide something very valuable to the Body of Christ by sharing it with us all so that we can prevent these atrocities.
Bart,
I didn’t take his last paragraph to be in reference to some future crime but in reference to crimes already committed. Churches already assume this responsibility.
Let’s talk apples and oranges.
Apples. If Syrian or another nationality refugees are in my neighborhood then I as a Christian should minister them them. That is, Christians have an obligation to love and minister to our neighbors, whoever they are. That is really not under dispute.
Oranges. I do not see where as Christians that we MUST support and advocate for a particular position on allowing Syrian refugees or refugees of any nationality into this country. I think our position on this particular public policy issue for the country known as the United States of America can be either way that is being argued here. I do not see where there is only ONE Christian position on the how open or closed the US border should be per public policy.
But back to the apples, whoever is here should be ministered to.
Les,
The issue here is not “IF” the US allows in Syrian Refugees…the issue is, as it stands, the US government decided to let in refugees, but after allowing them in legally, decides to prosecute a church that helped some of those refugees, who then later commit an act of violence. THAT, as Alan says, is ludicrous.
It might be more obvious to some if it were a law in Texas that said any church who helps a LEGAL immigrant who then later commits a crime can be be held liable…
The ONLY silver lining I can see is that if such a case were to go to court, it would hopefully raise such a backlash that the law may at that point be struck down.
I don’t think the parent/child analogy applies here, because a church feeding hungry people has no legal right or responsibility or ability to control those people in the way they do their own children.
Andy,
“The issue here is not “IF” the US allows in Syrian Refugees…the issue is, as it stands, the US government decided to let in refugees, but after allowing them in legally, decides to prosecute a church that helped some of those refugees, who then later commit an act of violence. THAT, as Alan says, is ludicrous.”
And to that point I have not disagreed.
Well, that is what is going on. The church will not be prosecuted. Just held civilly liable as a “co-sponsor” with World Relief all the way down to the individual Board of Directors.
Massive religious liberty violations.
Well, we are talking about apples here. The refugees have already been vetted and admitted and placed. Churches step up to minister to them and co-sponsor the refugee who is here legally AFTER they come here. Then, according to this law, the church and/or World Relief can be sued if the refugee ever commits a crime in the future.
The Pandora’s Box that that opens is mind-boggling.
There really is a huge problem with the vetting process which is basically UN sanctioned groups working with NGOs. The Feds pay the NGOs such as Catholic Relief. (And it pays well!) Add to this mess many such countries did not start tracking births until the last 30 years or so and even then there is no way to check. That is why the Somali refugees mostly have Jan 1 birthdays and actual ages are guessed. I believe Syria started tracking births in the 60’s?
I cannot tell you how many 50 something yr old “Uncles” I have met who brought over their anywhere from 3-5 “nieces” ages anywhere from 15 to 25. And they don’t want them educated. Just get them childcare jobs.
One translator I worked with, who is also a linguist, knew many of them were lying about what region they came from. (He eventually quit when he found out the Feds pay Catholic Charities 100 bucks an hour for translation but paid him 20. He had a job and frankly the travel ate up thrle 20!
. But what difference does any of it make. There is no way to check. The saddest part is often they were “somebody” in their caste system back home to even if they lived in a shack. But they waited for the dictator to send the milk truck, too. They view us the same way. And their underground economy is something else even down to drivers licenses. They often do not assimilate in ways that benefit them and us.
The States have no real say in this process.the subsidized housing is Federal as is the other helps. The legislature seems to be grasping at anything to have some control of what happens in their state. The NGOs handling refugees are mainly religious organizations in partnership with the Feds and UN. The religious angle was already in play the minute they take Federal funds
Lydia, your examples are anecdotal, and while I respect your expertise, I can tell you that the situation in Upstate South Carolina and World Relief is quite different. Refugees are being connected with churches. They are being ministered to. Many are coming to Christ. Many Baptist churches in the area are making this a significant part of their ministry.
In reading the actual bill I see this bill places responsibility on the organization that was involved in the original vetting of the refuge “not” the local church who feeds, cloths, and ministers to the refuge.
Some of the organization are known for dumping refuges in a community, taking Federal money and making a profit without any concern for impact on the local community.
This bill in it’s current form needs some adjustments and clarification before becoming law in South Carolina. In addition these religious organizations also need to change some of their practices to be responsible stewards.
When Religion gets involved with Government as in refugee resettlement, it becomes partners with Government more than partners with the local church in many cases.
“In reading the actual bill I see this bill places responsibility on the organization that was involved in the original vetting of the refuge “not” the local church who feeds, cloths, and ministers to the refuge.”
I think this is a VERY important distinction. Churches should not be vetting. If they enter that realm – then they are then accepting the risk, IMO.
Vetting refugees from Islamic Terrorist hot beds like Syria well (before letting them in) is a job for the govt. (If of course, they are willing and able to do it – Obama administration is not being open with state officials as to how they are doing that and the FBI director said recently “we cannot vet our terrorists from the refugees.”)
*out
That is not what the FBI Director said Tarheel. He said in the past that this could have happened but that they have learned a lot in eight years and the vetting process has greatly improved.
He said that he could not 100% guarantee that there were no risks, but assured that the vetting process is a lengthy one and that even with few records available as in the case of the Syrians, the process can still be done, although it does lengthen it considerably for the Syrian refugees.
In reality nothing is every 100% and that is what the director was alluding to. There is always a small risk in everything.
One can’t just come here and state they are stateless, it has to be proven Tarheel.
No, that is not the situation. The refugee resettlement agencies do not do any “vetting” either. This bill targets sponsor organizations, like World Relief. Churches are considered “co-sponsors.”
I know for a fact that Lutheran World Federation Services Worldwide assist the UN in vetting Syrian refuges in Jordan. We can have our own set of opinions but the facts are the facts.
This bill needs to be clarified, but in no way does this bill as written intended to hold a local church responsible who feeds, cloths, and ministers to the refuge for terrorists acts they may commit.
In addition this bill limits the Sponsors liability to the term of time the refugee is in the Refugee Resettlement Program.
“We can have our own set of opinions but the facts are the facts.”
Lutheran Services in Columbia, SC does not do vetting. World Relief in Spartanburg does not do vetting. The whole purpose of this bill as stated by Senate co-sponsors is to kill refugee resettlement in South Carolina. That is a fact. That has been clearly stated. The purpose of this is not to make South Carolina safer. The purpose is to keep refugees out of the state. Fact. Churches are also co-sponsors. Fact. World Relief in Spartanburg does NO vetting. Fact. There are a lot of facts that you are dismissing.
As you seem to also be dismissing the Actual Bill as fact.
I prefer source material Bill 997
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/bills/997.htm
I think this bill needs some clarification added. You can continue to make points and arguments that I am not addressing. Ad Hominem attacks are common when one cannot address the actual points I brought up. Along with what the bill actually says.
Ad Hominem attacks? What?
I have read the bill. I have read the amended bill. I have been working with people who are affected by the bill. I have watched the debate on the bill from the senate floor and have read all of the arguments pro and con. This bill has one purpose – to keep refugees out of South Carolina by making the state inhospitable to them. And, every part of it works along those lines.
This bill has flaws there is no questions about that. As it goes to the House I hope amendments are added that define what a Sponsor is more clearly so there is not this confusion.
This bill however is very clear what it takes to be “liable to the injured party”:
committed an act of “terrorism” as defined by Section 16-23-710
or committed one of the “violent crimes” defined in Section 16-1-60
This bill also is very clear that the refuge must be in the Refugee Resettlement Program for the sponsor to be liable. This is in many cases is a very short period of time.
If the organizations you mentioned are directly part of the Resettlement Support Center, then yes they have direct participation in vetting refugees.
The RSC helps the refugee and his /her family (if applicable) prepare their case file – taking photos, checking the facts in the files, collecting information for the security clearance process, etc. Applicants are then interviewed by an officer of DHS’ United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2013/210135.htm
The The International Catholic Migration Commission is such an organization.
You opened your article stating:
“Churches and religious organizations will be held civilly liable for “ANY” crime committed in the “FUTURE” by refugees that they helped place and support in South Carolina in the present.”
I do not see how you can make this case in light of what the bill actually states. You have been very involved in following this bill as you say. If you find factual issues with the points I make please bring them to my attention. I am happy to learn from facts of the actual bill that you are aware of.
States have rights and a role in defining who the Federal Government can resettle in their state. South Carolina is trying to exercise its rights. I hope you are not advocating these state rights to be solely controlled by the Federal Government.
S.0997 rests on a legal foundation known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the federal government cannot force states to provide resources for, or assist in implementing, any federal acts or programs. The Supreme Court established this doctrine primarily through four cases dating all the way back Prigg v. Pennsylvania in 1842.
It turns out.
World Relief works in partnership with the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration and the Office of Refugee Resettlement to provide initial resettlement and does vetting overseas.
Lutheran Services Carolinas Refugee Resettlement Program are partners with Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service’s who does vetting also overseas.
http://lirs.org/our-work/partnership/service-partners/refugee-resettlement-partners/
I would link World Relief but as you know 1 link allowed per comment.
Your local partners you mentioned are under the umbrella of the parent NGO, and the parent NGO does vetting overseas.
I see issues with this bill. I would like to support you regarding the issues I see with the bill. The local NGO does not do the vetting, the parent international NGO participates with State Department and UNHCR doing the vetting. Does that absolve them of all responsibility? That is an interesting conversation.
Should the parent international NGO have any liability for the refugees if they commit terrorism soon after they arrive? Another interesting conversation.
Lots of good detective work John K. Thank you.
John K., yes, you are right. There were last minute changes to the bill before it was approved on Thursday on some of this. The duration of liability was shortened to the time period that they are in the program and being sponsored. As to who vets, I was speaking of the local NGO. I am not aware of how World Relief operates overseas in the camps in this regard. I can find out, though.
There were many changes introduced to this bill – many of them because of objections that we were raising. I was briefed on them today. Hopefully, there will be more and things will be more fully refined and defined.
Making laws and making sausages – similar endeavors.
Alan,
Keep up the good work you are doing, the House in SC can add the fat back in the sausage as they mix it and squeeze it into the casing.
I would like to see the only way a relief organization could possibly be liable would be only if Gross Negligence was found:
Gross Negligence is a “”conscious and voluntary disregard”” of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.
Such as someone who was “known” to be a terrorist against the West. A “known” sexual predator, so forth. If this type of language cannot be inserted then I would hope that the entire section of Sponsor liability be eliminated.
They have in the bill reporting of the Refugee to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division who should be solely responsible for any policing of the refugee and public. This status should be limited to only the first year as the refugee is only on refugee status by US statute for one year. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division main focus should be to “protect and serve the refugee”, just as all Americans should do the same.
Hope this sausage turns into something you like. If it does, I know I will like it.
Thanks again for caring for these refugees and future Americans.
Keep up the good work Alan
THANK YOU. Almost no one ever reads the bill before publishing opinions. We have to do better than that.
So the bill directly places responsibility for future crimes on churches who may offer food or clothing with a refugee that sometime later becomes a terrorist?
or is there some other level of involvement that is required of the church before the provisions of the legislation are triggered?
In other words does this bill really say that if my church provides a thanksgiving meal to the community and Muhammed al anonymous comes in and gets a piece of turkey – and we notice that he has no shoes and his clothes are tattered and we clothe him and provide him shoes…and a relationship of care is established between a church member and the refugee as a result of the church function where they met….
That somehow our church is on the hook for any of his future crimes?
Or are we talking about some different kind of involvement?
No. I have not said that. It would target churches who are officially co-sponsors. Who sign papers saying that they will work with World Relief and help get these refugees settled and acclimated. They use this as a platform for relational ministry, of course.
So if churches stick to relational and gospel ministry to these individuals and families and stay completely out of the “vetting” or “vouching” or “signing” for these immigrants – then this law will not affect churches doing ministry, right?
They do not “vet” or “vouch” or “sign” for the refugees. They sponsor them so they can be the ones that help them get acclimated and work with them. The refugee comes in and a church sponsors them and works with them. It is the trust relationship and through this they minister to them. The SC Senate is targeting this because they want World Relief (an evangelical organization) and the churches to stop doing this. They know that if they can scare them, then they will stop and the refugees will no longer be placed in SC. The Federal Govt. sends them to SC because they have partner churches who have agreed to help them. Without that, the Feds won’t send them to SC because they do not trust that we will just “relationally” step up. Knowing how most churches are, I would not trust that either.
Alan, there Seems to be a lot of speculative surmising going on in your post. 🙂
Dave, I don’t have the time or energy to provide a link or citation for everything that I say in a comment stream on a blog. If people don’t believe what I am saying, they are free to look it up. I encourage them to stay off Breitbart, which does nothing but lie on this issue.
Alan,
Do churches have to “sponsor” in order to minister to immigrants? If you can show me where the church has to engage in sponsorship in order to minister to immigrants then I would see the religious liberty concern that you were alarming us to– but I have something I just don’t see it.
It’s not as simple as “not believing” – of course I think you’re an honest person- it’s just that I’m not seeing the necessity of sponsorship to minister.
Btw. I don’t read brietbart.
Dave, I am not saying that you do read Breitbart. I just meant that if you look it up, don’t believe what they say.
Sponsorship is the way that churches minister to refugees when they come here. Sure, you can remove the church from the equation completely and then say that if you happen to run into a refugee at the grocery store then you can say something to them or offer them something. But, the trust relationship is built with the sponsor. The real question is, are these people an actual liability? Churches have been ministering to refugees for decades through World Relief. There have not been issues. This bill would end that. If you are limiting access that previously existed, yes, I think that you have religious freedom issues, especially since churches do this as a biblical ministry.
Perhaps our view of religious freedom is too narrow?
Sponsorship is *a* way.
I have first hand knowledge of a church who ministers quite well to a community of immigrants (that includes Syrian immigrants) – there’s no official sponsorships – instead there are direct out reaches, evangelism, feeding, clothes give always, ESL, and more.
Very effective – and none of that would place the church in peril under SC bill if the church were in SC. All of above can happen, without threat, in SC even after passage and signing of this bill, right?
One thing you can pretty much count on these days – anything on Breitbart is slanted…perhaps outright falsehood.
Also – if there’s nothing to worry about b/c any threat is minuscule – then should the world outreach organization you speak of be safe in co ti using status quo after the bill is passed?
If the argument is “there’s nothing to worry about” – then there’s nothing for them to to worry about either, right?
*continuing status quo…
Church boards will run away out of fear of potential lawsuit. This happens all of the time. Then, the whole ministry dies and the outreach to refugees is gone. That is what will happen and everyone knows it. This is all a fear tactic.
Alan raises a very good point about this bill on its face and also about Christian response to the broader issue. I have come to appreciate that he is extremely well informed on this, as well as patient and measured in this discussion with lesser informed commenters.
“The difference between Marxist ideology and what I said is that in Marxist ideology, the people’s lives belonged to the state, while in Christian theology, we are all creatures of the Creator, and thus our lives belong to Him. More so for those who know Him, and have been bought with a great price.”
No. You have managed to turn Christianity into your version of Marxism. you are declaring what a “real Christian” would do as if Christians are not able to govern themselves if they disagree with you. And the only arguments here are based on shame and the philosopher king approach to bible interpretation.
“As to lifestyle, the USA has been wonderfully blessed by God, and most of its people live lavish lifestyles, especially as compared to most people of the world. One reason we were blessed is because we sought after God and His heart, which is to look after the least-of-these, which Debbie’s excellent reference to the Statue of Liberty encapsulates in part.”
And those welcomed were expected to assimilate in our culture of free speech and self government. They did not remain a burden to our infrastructure. They grew it. You have a very limited view of what is happening in the US economically. For example, The over 50’s are losing their middle class jobs like crazy. They now need gov help. You can use shame for people who have worked hard to provide for their children future but I would suggest you first. It is always easier to spend OPM.
“That as a country, we are turning farther and farther, and faster and faster away from God and His principles, it will come as no surprise to the wise that [and if] the hand od God was lifted off the land and the prosperity we have enjoyed turns to ever increasing drudgery.”
Socialism/collectivism you spout does that. People start angling for more of the smaller pie. The increasing gov regulations and rules make barriers for the little guy to start a business and prosper. They look to gov to create jobs which is an oxymoron. Crony capitalism, another form of fascism, is another huge problem that marries Wall Street to DC and bails out failures.
“So no dear, i am not telling anyone to tow a party line or be embarrassed, but rather that security and prosperity found outside of faith and obedience to God is a house built on the sand, and one that will fall, and great will be that fall.”
Maybe your congregation will see you as their philosopher King and leave any wisdom or independent thinking at home. Most do these days.
And when our legislative bodies pass laws not based on the truth of the Bible, it seeks to construct a nation built not on the sure foundation but on that sinking sand. And we as Christians have a duty borne of love, not just to the refugees, but to our fellow Americans, to stand against such legislation.
Lydia,
you said,
“No. You have managed to turn Christianity into your version of Marxism. you are declaring what a “real Christian” would do as if Christians are not able to govern themselves if they disagree with you. And the only arguments here are based on shame and the philosopher king approach to bible interpretation.”
I never said one was to do anything but obey the Lord. That is what real Christians would do. I also said that we should oppose the ungodliness of our society, which includes opposition to laws that are based not on the solid rock of truth.
And i don’t have a congregation, i am in one. I go to Parsons Baptist, but i am not a parson.
And I never said one wasn’t a Christian if they didn’t follow me.
Most of your post follows upon your same line of assumption, and thus needs no reply
Have a great day.
“They do not “vet” or “vouch” or “sign” for the refugees. They sponsor them so they can be the ones that help them get acclimated and work with them.”
The Jewish community here did this 25 or so years ago for Ukrainian Jews. They bought blocks of apts, furnished them, provided job training, etc. the difference was they were highly educated and assimilated well. Many were professionals who could not work in their field at home so had become hairstylists and DJ’s because it paid better than medicine, etc.
The Jewish community took full financial responsibility. That is the big difference from what these other refugee ministries do. Even when they find jobs, they are on food stamps, in federal housing and using health care system without paying.
Sounds nice and loving but at some point it is going to crash big time.
I see nothing that backs any of these statements Lydia, in fact I see quite the opposite in the reports I read. The refugees that have come to this country own businesses, become doctors(many we have here in the city I live) and live quite peaceful and well here in America, free from ISIS.
Does anyone remember how our government declared they could vet about 5000 Syrians a year to be a moderate rebel army? They claimed their process was good. A half billion dollars later those vetted by our government who claimed to be what they were not turned over all the equipment we gave them to al-Nusra, the Syrian al Qaeda affiliate. In all, we ended up with 54 total.
So please let’s not act like our gov knows what it is doing.
They were vetting for terrorism, too! But they nor the UN do not vet concerning Sharia law which is a huge concern for individual rights and a backward slap to religious liberty which is being espoused here. England now has over 80 operating Sharia courts. We are seeing this huge problem in Germany, too. In parts of Belgium they cannot even hire women tram drivers because that are harassed so badly by Muslim men in those neighborhoods. At some Y’s the Muslim men harass the women swimmers in the lap pools so bad they had to make special times for them to swim….women free. Special rights that end up taking others rights away.
Let’s face it. To constitutionally practice Islam here means not being a good Muslim. Unless you are practicing taqiyya or muruna.
Lydia: These are simply prejudicial statements.
Good word Alan. The government of my home state (SC) is trying to pass a law that essentially says “freedom of religion, but you may be punished if you practice it outside your houses of worship in a way we are afraid of.” The buckle of the Bible belt throwing the Bible under the bus. How’s that for ironic? I pray for renewed common sense.
I’m no lawyer, but the way that bill reads to me is troubling. The “violent crimes” linked in the statute are pretty much any felony that’s not classic “white collar” crime. The wording appears to hold a third party accountable for an indefinite period of time for the behavior of people that the third party *can not control.*
That sounds bad. And extending that logic sounds even more bad.
Doug,
It sounds like you read section 16-1-60 Violent crimes. From my reading almost all statues deal with crime that result in “death” along with sexual crimes. There is also some limited drug crimes along with burglary and robbery that involves weapons.
The bill also states that the refugee must be in the “Refugee Resettlement Program” for the sponsor to be held liable. This is usually a very short period of time. Not an indefinite period of time.
I am not in favor of local and state NGO’s being held liable unless there was Gross negligence. Gross negligence is a “”conscious and voluntary disregard”” of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. I would like to see this clarified as the bill goes to the House in South Carolina.
I am not sure either how easy it would be the International NGO would or could be held liable considering they are working for and being paid by the State Department unless there was Gross negligence.
Again, thank you.
Alan contends that the law is more about fear than safety. He’s more benevolent than I. Because the law is clearly more about re-election than it is about safety. The South Carolina state legislators see how convincingly Trump steamrolled the South Carolina primary. They’re taking advantage of the political moment and a bloc of voters’ prejudices. The law will make no one safer.
Alan,
Thanks for your efforts to preserve authentic Christian ministry to those who really need it. And there are legitimate concerns with this bill and how it could deter Christian ministry. If I’m following the logic of it, when I give a dollar to a homeless person or transport a hitchhiker, then because some other small pct of homeless people or hitchhikers have committed crimes, I could be treated as an accessory to their future crimes.
Also, the bill as written does not exclude refugees from SC nor does it preclude ministry to them. What it will do is force ‘sponsors’ to assume responsibility for future crimes and in doing this it will discourage Christian mercy. Is this correct?
What I ‘hear’ in this thread is that there is no risk because they’ve been vetted so any opposition is motivated by racism; or yes, there may be some risk but followers of Christ have no expectation of safety or ease (which I think all will concur with). That’s fine except the explosion won’t kill just me or the follower of Christ.
But there are also valid concerns:
a) You defined terrorism in the OP as “the spreading of paralyzing fear through the threat of violence.” It is not just a threat. It is violence.
b) There is a lot of turbulence at the interface between believers/churches and governments. Because this interface is rarely defined most believers are confused as to what the role of government is to be in this situation.
c) IMO, your condemnation of the SBC legislators in SC is premature. If one of the rightful roles of government is the protection of its citizenry, then if they believe the introduction of refugees from Islamic nations poses a threat, they are justified in their efforts. As far as I can tell, Scripture never condemns rulers for erecting walls for protection. Whether their motives are noble or corrupt I have no idea but for rulers to take action to protect citizens is honorable.
d) Repeatedly defending the vetting process only underscores the disconnect between the federal gov’t and the American people. Many (most?) Americans do not trust the gov’t. And in light of “Islam is a religion of peace,” Fast-n-Furious, Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservative groups, Planned Parenthood, and so on the distrust is warranted. There are sound reasons for people to be suspicious of anyone coming here from a region of Islamic terror.
e) Suggesting that the terrorist would have no interest in entering through the RRP rings hollow. They do not share your worldview, they do not reason as you do, and they do not live on your timetable.
f) If preserving religious freedom is the concern, then by magnitudes over, the greater threats are homosexual activists, abortionists, and Islam. Are there any predominantly Muslim nations that practice religious freedom? Tunisia maybe? In almost every place where Islam flourishes, religious freedom is suppressed.
If you are not going to define the church-gov’t interface, then a wiser tack may be to find a win-win option. One that doesn’t demand that the gov’t (vetting process) be trusted, one that doesn’t condemn states for protecting their people, and especially one that doesn’t discourage Christian mercy.
Yours in Christ
Is there a biblical distinction between how Christians should interact with others on an individual basis and how God has ordained government to protect its citizens?
You make a good point.
And some people ridicule conspiracy theorists. I watched a film on top documentaries which showed person after person (of the public sort) casting all kinds of aspersion on those who advocate conspiracy. consider this, if you want to reduce society to civil war, throw groups of people into the mix of our societies who have no like for the freedom, etc. When I was a child I remember hearing my family argue about the subject. One person made it objective, namely, my grandfather’s brother who warned of WWII, and my grandfather told a fellow who was going to get his military training in as the President (FDR) had said we would not go overseas and get involved in a war. My grandfather said, “If you join, you will be overseas win a World War in such and such amount of time. After the War the neighbor returned and said to my grandfather, “Well, you were right about being overseas in a World War. You were just wrong about the time.”(I can’t remember whether grandpa said it would be six months and it was a year or vice versa). Now while we are distracted with things like the bill on churches, etc., being responsible for the refugees who are really replacements for the 60 million aborted babies. We are also being opened to the possibility of being sued out of home, church, and existence (try starvation and sleeping under bridges – if you can find room there) as a result of what has happened in Georgia with the Governor’s veto of Religious Liberty Bill.
North Carolina has passed a bill and the Governor signed it regarding the use of restrooms for the people of the same sex but not the transgender, etc. Imagine have to share a toilet with a female. Not something I would care to do. We had better wake up and give ourselves to humble praying before the Lord for help in dealing with this issue and also for a Great Awakening of the people to the presence of Christ in this world. You all might want to consider the statements in Jn.14 where it says, “I will come unto you,” and remember it is in the present tense which means, “I am coming to you.”