Trump’s plan for the forced mass deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants and their 5 million U.S. citizen children is to forcibly deport 25,000 people per day for 18-24 months at the beginning of his administration, which would necessitate the suspension of Due Process (Constitutionally guaranteed even to those here illegally), would cost approximately $600 Billion, and would have a net economic impact of over $2 Trillion over 20 years. I wrote about this plan in detail last September and explained the historical significance and cost of this.
The Trail of Tears involved forced removal of 40,000 Creek and Cherokee Indians over approximately 10 years, just for historical reference, and is considered a blight on American history. Families would be divided and parents removed from children. Hundreds of thousands of children would be thrown into the foster care system as they are U.S. citizens because they were born here, but their parents will be removed. Many parents will leave their children behind because for many to return to where they are from, it would be a death sentence. Millions of the 11 million undocumented have been here for years. Millions were brought here as children without their own consent and they have no real memory of their home country. Communities will be torn apart. Churches emptied. Families disbanded. Children orphaned. The cost to tax payers will be in he hundreds of billions. The cost to our nation morally and socially will be unfathomable.
If you vote for Trump because you think he is the lesser of evils, I understand and recognize that many are in a real dilemma. But, what will you do when forced mass immigration happens? Will you stand by as a newly formed, weaponized immigration police force rolls through your community in raids in the middle of the night to clear out neighborhoods and pull parents away from screaming children? This is not sensationalism. This happens now. It happened in January in Atlanta. I spoke to people who had first hand knowledge of the ICE raids going after the families of those who came last year as migrants from Central America and missed their court dates, often because they did not speak English and had no idea what was required of them. In the middle of the night, armed ICE agents broke through their doors and pulled them out and off to detention and deportation. The numbers affected across the country were a few hundred. What if that happens with 25,000 per day all over the country? Because that is what it will take to complete Trump’s forced mass deportation plan.
If you have to vote for Trump, then what is your responsibility to oppose some of his actions? Will you take on his beliefs about what to do about undocumented immigrants? Will you also support forced mass deportation of millions of people – many who have been here for years and were either brought here against their will as small children or have citizen children who were born here? If you are against this, are you prepared to advocate for immigrants and stand with them when the deportation forces come for them? These are real questions for us now. This is the dilemma that we are in.
If you are a follower of Christ during this time in history, what will you do?
Thank you for describing a side of the immigration debate that some may not have considered. I am not sure how the comments will be on this post but it took courage to write this and I want to thank you for doing so. It was a game changer for me when I saw how many references there are to immigration and immigrant care in the Bible. I pray the church looks at this issue from a biblical and not just a political lens.
I will go on record right now and say I will not stand silently and idly by if this occurs. As Casper Ten Boom is quoted as saying in The Hiding Place, “I will open my door to any in need.” My friends in the immigrant community can count on me and my family to peacefully but actively resist such a policy. To do less, would be a violation of my faith.
Thanks for this Alan.
So you are actively working against ICE to harbor Illegal Immigrants? If not, then why not? There are (though not in the millions) people actually being deported from this country. Are you really saying anyone (regardless of how they entered this country) deserve to be hidden from authorities? There are laws on the books already. I don’t think you are really saying you would be doing this, though I will let you answer.
Or, are you just incensed that Trump would speak about actually doing it across the board and not looking the other way?
There are reasons for deportation. Fear and hatred are not two of them. The threat of mass deportation of 11M people at the cost of breaking up families and without considering the circumstances of what caused a person to be here illegally is immoral. It is also a violation of the biblical principle of hospitality.
I would hope to not have to be in the position of harboring illegal immigrants, but if they are being treated unfairly and deported without due process, then I would do what is necessary.
The causes of people being here illegally are more than just sneaking across the border. There are many people here “illegally” who have overstayed their visas as the result of corrupt business practices and systemic processes of abuse.
Each person deserves a hearing and a valid examination of their situation instead of simply being “sent back where they came from” when we have no idea of why they are here.
The notion that any President can simply do what they want is where Congress, and the States, are supposed to step in and prove there is a Separation of Powers. Oh, wait! We are talking about a potential Trump presidency and not actually condemning the current president or his predecessor for taking Executive Action WAY outside the boundaries of Constitutionality.
However, Trump stumping on the campaign trail and what will take place are entirely two different things. The issue is however: Should ILLEGAL Immigrants be deported. You are free to answer no, but most people would say ILLEGAL Immigrants have committed a crime and should be punished, no different than a robber or a thief.
Furthermore, Sanctuary Cities are currently defying National Laws and our Current President does NOTHING about it. But people are being killed by ILLEGAL Immigrants in those cities. Oh, wait, sorry they are.
Also, Obama has deported almost 3 million people during his presidency, more than any other president. Border security is stronger than ever and more people are apprehended at the border. We pay Mexico in the tens of millions each year to help shut down their Southern Border. The ICE raids happening now targeting Central Americans are being used to send a message to those suffering in the drug wars in Central America that they should not come here. Obama has been called the “Deporter in Chief” by immigrant activists. Republicans refused to work with him and say that he is looking the other way. I expect them to lie. We should not.
The height of illegal immigration was in 2007. It has been in decline ever since. Obama has been much stronger on this than Bush ever was. Those are facts. But, there are other factors ar work. Trump lies on this issue constantly. All of the time. He lies and lies. OR, he is completely ignorant. Either way, it is dangerous.
Look, I am a conservative politically and theologically. But, there is FAR more going on with the immigration situation than is being presented from the Right. My question is, what will churches do?
If you vote for Trump after he has clearly announced his intentions then you are affirming those actions.
Alan:
Thank you for writing this post and asking if evangelicals will support what you have summarized as “Trump’s plan for the forced mass deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants and their 5 million U.S. citizen children”, which you say will forcibly deport 25,000 people per day for 18-24 months at the beginning of his administration.
I did not vote for Trump in the primary, but it looks increasingly as though I will in the general election. I will either watch or read about the debates, and I will continue to watch what the candidates promise to do if elected.
I have a lot that I would like to say in response to your post, so I will divide my comments up.
In this comment, I will discuss my thoughts on immigration generally.
Immigration is an interesting issue. My first belief is that people have a right, generally, to move to where they want to live. I see that as a basic human right. No government should assign people a place where they must live, especially if that means uprooting them from their current or ancestral home, which is what happened in the Trail of Tears that you mention. That is not happening here.
My second belief is that the concept of a nation state is a good thing and has been beneficial to mankind generally. Some people do not believe in that. I do.
I think it is preferable for people to gather in a place with borders and establish nations and have laws governing human behavior for the protection of all. This creates tension, but I believe it is better than family or tribal arrangements, which also have their own tensions. Among those laws are laws governing who and who may not enter the nation. That is a fundamental truth.
The modern world has put these two beliefs, which are already in tension, under great strain. The ability to travel is greater than it has ever been. That means even the poor of a nation half way around the world can end up traveling to another nation to live. This is now happening by the millions all over the world.
Mass migration is now occurring because of economic reasons. But if there were no borders, it could happen for other reasons, such as control of another nation.
To use a analogy – China, for example, has 1 billion people. Without the order brought by borders, China could send, say, 100 million people to live in the U.S. And in an instant, 1 out of every 4 people in the U.S. would be Chinese. That would cause massive political and economic consequences which could be dangerous. For example, if China ordered the relocation of 100 million of its citizens for the purpose of harming the U.S., and the U.S. permitted that, that would be a dangerous situation.
Or 30 million people from the U.S. could move to Venezuela, Grenada, or Spain. Such a move would forever transform those nations and essentially put them under U.S. control.
The fact that mass migration can now happen, and is happening, does not mean that those people who have established nations cannot establish laws about who can enter and upon what conditions.
I believe that despite the fact that all men are brothers, so to speak, and despite the universal nature of the church and that in heaven people from all tribes and tongues will be there, that each nation has a right and obligation to govern itself and to adopt laws that help create a society that is prosperous and stabile.
I believe that you, and most people, support what I have said. Again – that people should be free to travel, but that national sovereignty is a moral good, and that nations have a right to govern who enters their nation.
If we disagree on those principles, then we need to have a more foundational conversation than the particulars of Trump’s plan because we are starting with completely different perspectives.
I also do not find in the OT or the NT a direct command relating to the immigration of people. There are a few references to treating sojourners fairly and such in the OT, but those verses do not address the underlying legality of the sojourners’ presence. In those verses, it is assumed that the sojourner is present legally and without harmful intent or effect. And again, those verses are not intended to provide a framework for 21st century immigration policies. To the extent one wants to argue that they do, the takeaway would be that there is no legitimate reason to have a border. One would advocate that the Bible requires open borders. That is a stretch to Texas and back.
Probably, the verses just mean that we should be kind to those people who are like us, and that we should be kind to those people who aren’t. Those who are “not from around here.”
Finally, the present day has another feature that makes the immigration issue even more tricky – the welfare state.
For most of human existence, people who moved from one country to another took great risk. The cost of the journey was risk enough. But how to make a living and exist upon arrival at the new home – that was really risky.
Modern states within only the last 100 or slightly more years ago began constructing welfare states to take care of the poor in their midst. Well, if a person lives on $1 a week in Africa, but learns he can get a place to live and a monthly stipend and free education and transportation in another country, guess where he is moving?
This creates a magnate for the poor. They seek to travel to countries where there is more wealth. A few of them is no problem. Millions may be. This is something the new country has to consider when adopting immigration and welfare policies. The wrong decisions can result in financial strain and collapse.
It’s very much like adoption. Maybe the Lord is calling a family to adopt 1, perhaps 2 or 3 children. But every family has a breaking point financially. Adopting 15 children would not only be bad for the adoptees, but it would be bad for the children already in the home.
Also, the host country can lose its own unique culture if immigration occurs too quickly. A country that believes in free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc., may find those freedoms under assault if too many people from another culture that does not share those beliefs immigrate too quickly. The immigrants may adopt the beliefs of the new country, or they may not.
I have a friend who immigrated from South Korea. He grew up and was living in California as a young man about 20 years ago. He is a Christian. He was working with an immigrant Pakistani and the two became friends. The Pakistani told my friend one day about Islam, and my friend asked, “Well, what if Mohammed was not a prophet?” To which the Pakistani became enraged and said, “If we were in my country, you would be dragged out into the streets and stoned to death for saying that.” So – the point is – one guy like this from Pakistan is fine. 1 million would be a problem.
These are just general thoughts about immigration. In my next comment, I will address the Trump plan.
Amen to what Louis said.
I’m all for LEGAL immigration.
David
Vol,
Can I ask you a question in regards to your statement?
How do you feel about companies who being people to the US on work visas and then pay them low wages such that at the expiring of their work visas the people who came legally to work for these companies then do not have enough money to get back to their home countries?
That is the situation that many of these 11M people Trump is wanting to deport find themselves in.
abs,
I would be all for making those 11 million go thru the process. Give them work visas, right now, or whatever else they need, so that they can go thru the legal means of becoming a US citizen. Maybe, that way, we can send home the criminals, who’ve come into our country. And, we can keep the people, who are not criminals.
But, I’m all for building the wall, and doing what it takes to strengthen our borders. We do need to make sure that the people of our country are being taken care and protected. It’s the same thing with the Syrian refugees. Let’s bring in the ones, who aren’t terrorists, and reject the one’s who are. Let’s check them out, before turning them loose on our loved ones, here, in the USA.
Also, we’re not OT Israel, who was commanded to take care of the sojourner in their land. OT laws are not binding on the USA of today. In fact, we can eat pork chops and catfish, and people don’t have to keep all of the laws given to the nation of Israel in OT times. Jesus fulfilled the OT, and raised the teachings there to a new level. As NT Believers, we are commanded to obey the commands of Jesus.
But anyway, as a Christian, I do want to win people to Jesus of all races, nationalities, from every tribe and tongue.
David Worley,
I am in almost complete agreement with all that you have said. That is the position that I work from. I am not super excited about a wall because I don’t think it will solve the problem and it will create more problems, but if getting a wall would ensure that solved the other problems, that would make sense. As for the pathway to legal status, that is the solution for all of this.
Sounds to me like Russell Moore has passed the torch to Alan Cross.
Sounds to me like both men take seriously the command to take care of the sojourner or foreigner written multiple times in the Bible.
Louis, see my thoughts on that point. I have tried to logically think through that. I have a hard time taking those references and applying them to the modern situation. I think those commands are basically to treat foreigners fairly, as you would locals. I do not think that those passages can be fairly said to address 21st century immigration policy, especially given the complications of the welfare state and national security. Of course we know the Israelites also slaughtered the foreigners whose land they came to occupy (which is really much more like the Trail of Tears), and they repelled invading armies. These added complexities make me think that the commands you are referring to are more along the lines of general fair treatment for outsiders, and not specific planks for a modern immigration policy.
I, like many others, have had the same thoughts that Alan has expressed well before Russell Moore became popular.
Tyler, I do not think Russell Moore is popular with the membership who generally are unaware of him, his political activity and his position or even the ERLC. When Moore’s viewpoints and positions become known to the general SBC membership he will not be popular. The majority of SBC will vote for Trump so just like the establishment GOP and Dems the leadership is out of touch or does not represent it members. If Russell Moore wants to get his message out spend 2 months visiting under 500 membership SBC churches with his message and get real feedback not Brentwood Tenn. 92 percent white, affluent suburb feedback or his staff in Nashville or the endless meetings that are attended to share same same opinions.
Man, we must know two very different groups of Southern Baptists. I think I can only think of one member at my church who is considering voting for Trump.
Tyler, where is your church?
Alan:
I went to Trump’s website to read his immigration plan. It can be found here: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform
I did not find anywhere in the plan the type of deportation effort that you have mentioned.
I have heard Trump pressed by reporters and such saying that his plan would require the “rounding up of 11 million people”, to which Trump has said “They have to go back.” And then he adds things about reapplying for entry etc.
But here is what the Trump plan says:
First, it has what he calls “3 core principles”. They are:
1. A nation without borders is not a nation.
2. A nation without laws is not a nation.
3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation.
I cannot find anything in those principles which is anti-Christian or anti-evangelical. I wrote previously about the legitimacy of borders. Again, if that is in question, we need to have a different discussion.
The U.S. has existing immigration laws that have been passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. I see no problem with Christians supporting the faithful execution of these laws. In fact, I see that as honest and legitimate.
I believe the U.S. should serve its own citizens as a matter of priority over those from other countries. It’s just like you and your family. You teach your family to love others. But you are going to feed, cloth, house, and educate your family first. You will not put your own family member behind the needs of others in that regard.
So, I see nothing wrong with those core principles.
As to the specifics, the Trump plan contains a short but easily readable list of specifics. As I read through the specifics, I have a hard time finding which of these is egregious or anti-Christian.
I have listed the specifics below exactly as they come from Trump’s website. At points have added a short comment – after a hyphen.
Make Mexico Pay For The Wall – this sounds as though we are going “force” this, but he makes suggestions in the way of taxes, penalties and other methods. Mexico would not write a check, but it would be taken out in other ways.
Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States – as stated above, simply enforce existing law.
Triple the number of ICE officers – this would bring the total from 5000 to 15000, which covers the states, Puerto Rico and Guam. This is still a very small force. Not enough to “round up 11 million people.” Trump makes the point that Los Angeles alone has 10000 cops. This increase in ICE agents is necessary, but not enough to do what you are concerned about.
Nationwide e-verify
Mandatory return of all criminal aliens
]
Detention—not catch-and-release – this applies to all new people detained trying to enter the U.S.
Defund sanctuary cities.
Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa – this is a really good idea. Would apply to all countries.
Cooperate with local gang task forces.
End birthright citizenship – this has not really been established to begin with. The 14th Amendment was directed toward slaves and their ancestors, not people who sneak into the country and their children. The U.S. Supreme Court has never decided what this amendment means regarding birthright citizenship.
Put American Workers First
Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs – this is big issue for high skilled workers. Workers from India and other places are displacing high tech U.S. workers because they can be paid less. I heard a radio story about a guy who was replaced at Disney. He trained his Indian replacement for 6 months before he was let go.
Requirement to hire American workers first.
End welfare abuse.
Jobs program for inner city youth.
Refugee program for American children.
Immigration moderation.
There is nothing in here about rounding up 11 million people. That would be impossible and too costly.
But if the above steps were taken, it would cause many of these folks to self deport. I also believe that ending educational benefits for college, no longer giving driver’s licenses and other state benefits would be helpful.
The basic point here is that I do not see where Trump is advocating for rounding up 11 million people. There is not enough manpower and money to do that. And the courts would prohibit that anyway.
Again, I have heard Trump pressed on this issue. That his plan would “require rounding up 11 million people”, but the plan does not require that.
If the specifics of Trump’s plan were followed, I do not see that mass round ups occurring.
So, in this case we may be arguing about what Trump’s opponents are claiming to be necessary implications of his policies vs. what he actually plans to do.
And as for what Trump says in this interview or that interview when hammered on this concept is part of the bluster that is Trump.
He is a flawed candidate, as we all know.
But in voting, we are choosing from the choices we have.
Read the post I linked, Louis. His written plan is different from what he has told people. I explored this in depth last September.
And, as an editor here at SBCVoices, I will take the liberty to say that if your comment is much longer than the original post, you should probably try to edit down and comment on the post instead of writing your own.
This is not a debate on immigration. I am asking what you will do when Trump tries to enact his plan of forced mass deportation? Will you cheer it on? I am all for border security and deporting criminals. I have never said otherwise. And yes, the Bible does speak to this quite clearly. It isn’t general. But, Israel isn’t America and we aren’t God’s chosen people. America can do what it wants. But, what will the church say? How will we respond when the young man I know of here in my city who was brought here at 6 months old and is graduating high school this week then faces deportation to a country he doesn’t know of? I think that the general commands of Scripture would apply to what my perspective as a Christian should be toward that young man.
You can do what you like. I have planted my flag in the ground.
Alan, this is no legal term undocumented immigrant, if you are here without going though lawful immigration you are by definition an illegal alien. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, an undocumented immigrant or unregistered American. These are all terms the press and advocates of cheap illegal alien labor, Mexican government and liberal US government programs use to deflect the issue to one of emotion and caring. You have not correctly stated Trump’s position and as noted it is a proposal that has to be approved by Congress and comprised on. Why the SBC has been so intent on getting into political and policy issues regarding Trump stumps me. The leadership of SBC is nothing more than a political arm of the DNC or the fail Rubio campaign. Some in the SBC have called Jesus an illegal immigrant, wow , is that not stacking the debt. I could not find Egyptian immigration law dating back to birth of Jesus but I do not think Joseph and Mary broke it. The SBC is on a dangerous course getting involved in politics on such an involved and personal level. The majority of SBC members , unaware of the SBC position will vote for Trump and I do not think they will lose their salvation, do you? Yes, I support Trump’s position to enforce our existing laws. Either we have law or we do not, right now we do not.
Illegal Alien. Fine. We can use the legal term. I use the term for people that still recognizes that they are people made in God’s image and are not illegal in their being. That makes more sense theologically, but whatever you think is best – go for it.
Yes, how we TREAT immigrants, whether the they are here legally or not, is related to our salvation and how we understand it. There is a huge Biblical teaching on it. No, America is not Israel. I am speaking about Christians and the church.
Mass forced deportation IS NOT the law. It has not been done. It is not policy and approximately 90% of Americans are opposed to it when asked directly about it. Trump HAS said he would do this. I have it in the link with direct quotes. Support him if you like, but will you oppose THIS? That is the question. You have answered it. Thank you.
Sorry. 75% oppose mass forced deportation. I was thinking of another poll.
Alan, so are you in favor of Sanctuary Cities? If not, then why not. The notion there will be no “due process” is a cover for folks who simply don’t believe ILLEGAL Immigrants have done anything ILLEGAL.
Is your house open to Illegals Alan? If not, then why not. Yet you want the nation’s “house” to be open to them. Why aren’t you harboring them? Again, this is what Sanctuary Cities are doing.
To equate Deportation of ILLEGALS with the Trail of Tears is a Straw-Man of Biblical Proportions. Why then are we Imprisoning people who commit crimes (ILLEGAL Activity). We should embrace them. We should hide them from Trump.
Ted Cruz actually had a much Harsher Stance on the deportation issue than Trump. The Truth is the Public is tired of the GOP Establishment kowtowing on this issue. ILLEGAL Immigration is a blight on the economy and the welfare system, especially in the era of Socialized Medicine (Obamacare).
This is not an issue of Immigration, it is an Issue of ILLEGAL Immigration. Again, if you think the two are the same, take the locks off your house and hang a “ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS Welcome here” sign on the door.
Almost everything that you said is factually wrong, except for the part about houses having locks or something. I mean, you neither intersected with the substance of my post nor did you present things are accurate. You just presented anti-immigration reform rhetoric.
The facts are that not all of the 11 million are here for the same reason, due process is meant to sort that out, it would have to be abandoned to do what Trump requires, being here illegally is not a felony – it is a misdemeanor, undocumented immigrants have a net positive economic impact across the board, Trump’s plan would cost over $2 Trillion in direct costs and lost economic activity, 75% of undocumented immigrants either came here a children or have had children born here that are U.S. citizens, 40% of the undocumented are visa overstays which means a wall will do nothing about this, 70 million visitors come to the U.S. on temporary visas per year bringing billions in economic activity so shutting down visa overstays will be very difficult, and only 50% of the undocumented are from Mexico which only started when we cut out guest worker programs in the 1960’s so they could not return home.
My question is, will you support Trump’s mass deportation plan that will send families to detention centers and then deport them to places all over the world? You can vote for Trump. But, will you stand by while he takes the 18 year old young man who was brought here at 6 months old and sends him back to a country he knows nothing of?
I get my information on the immigration situation first hand, not by reading Brietbart. There is WAY more going on here than most know.
Alan, I did interact with your post and the Trail of Tears reference is where you lost any credibility with me.
Again, as I said to someone else: The notion that any President can simply do what they want is where Congress, and the States, are supposed to step in and prove there is a Separation of Powers. Oh, wait! We are talking about a potential Trump presidency and not actually condemning the current president or his predecessor for taking Executive Action WAY outside the boundaries of Constitutionality.
However, Trump stumping on the campaign trail and what will take place are entirely two different things. The issue is however: Should ILLEGAL Immigrants be deported. You are free to answer no, but most people would say ILLEGAL Immigrants have committed a crime and should be punished, no different than a robber or a thief.
We will agree to disagree on the economic value of ILLEGAL activities. Another Fallacy of Yours, “But, will you stand by while he takes the 18 year old young man who was brought here at 6 months old and sends him back to a country he knows nothing of?”
Alan, will you stand by while the govt. takes a child away from their only parent (who just committed a crime and will have to go to jail) and send that child to Protective Serviced that he knows nothing about?
Nate, you don’t understand immigration law or what is actually happening. It is a misdemeanor. Being here illegally is not a deportable offense. That might shock you, but it is true. If you want to adhere to the rule of law, then that is the law. Now, if you disagree with the the law and want to change it, that is your right as an American, but don’t say that you are supporting the law. You are adding to it. Immigrants are only deported when they commit another crime, and even then, they have due process. Because the law says that they must. Sanctuary Cities are terrible, but they recognize the law as it is and allow for those who live in their cities to function there because this is a Federal issue.
All of this is exactly why we need Comprehensive Immigration Reform with a pathway to legal status, visa overhauls that actually fit our economy, and consideration for those who are caught in the middle of a broken system that only serves those who profit off of the abuse of the vulnerable.
And the Trail of Tears analogy was meant to draw comparison to forced migration and the sheer numbers. I recognize that the situation is different.
Alan,
“Having entered the United States without permission” meets the grounds of inadmissibility, found in Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.). These grounds of inadmissibility are sufficient for an order of “removal”. Everyone is allowed a lawyer and a hearing. This will not change.
Donald
Alan,
On one hand I think you ask a very good question about the practical negotiation of returning to legally controlled borders once again. Trump, I believe, has overcast the plan on purpose so that a negotiation of terms can be in order when Congress takes up the issue to instrument a bill in the future. I think he is wise in doing so. It is risky politically, but does give him room for walk back.
On the other hand,…The bible seems to be clear that to control a nation’s border, and to respect the borders of other nations, is righteous behavior in the sight of God. So, the question really becomes….is it immoral to deport individuals that do not respect borders, or the laws of the nation controlling the border. The United States has always been open to legal immigration, and still is today. The greater problem in America has manifest over the decades because of ineffective leadership, lack of respect for its own borders, and its lack of vigilance to follow the law to protect those immigrants coming to America legally.
Its kind of like a child that has been left to their own, developed bad habits, grew into a teenager breaking laws and causing greater problems. In this arena of legal/illegal immigration it happens to be American government that is that teenager, and because of its poor behavior…. .the potential parents…. taxpayers, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants get to share in the grief of the current dilemma.
I’m afraid the casualties of this calamity are the legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, and taxpayers. Somehow the illegal immigrants get the lion share of sympathy and assistance since they are easiest targets. When America helps an illegal to abide by the law, respect a nations border, and understand the benefits of controlling a nations border….is that a sinful action? Maybe the immature teenager needs to begin to act less like a delinquent and more like a law abiding leader.
Ultimately, I believe the role of the church is to love all people where they are, even during the process of sustaining and respecting borders. That seems to be a biblical mandate throughout history. (to be clear, I am only responding in the context of legal immigration in America, not other related issues like abusive conduct by nations, etc….which is a more complex issue)
Chris, I do not disagree. But, there is far more to this than just an illegal immigrant being a delinquent teenager. Many should be deported. But, for many others, there are extenuating circumstances that should be considered.
A process and pathway to legal status would address all of this in a way that combines Justice and mercy. But, that does not stir up the masses in the same way that Trump’s rhetoric has. Immigration law is far different than people think.
And I am all for secure borders and respecting the rule of law.
Alan, I was not thinking of the illegal alien as the “delinquent teenager”. I was describing our leaders in government as the “teenager”. Illegal immigrants have been allowed to break the law, and thus are now in the cross hairs of remediation…. of the immigration laws that have been ignored for decades.
I do think that Trump’s rhetoric is for one purpose….and is not the reality of what will happen even if he is elected President, since congress is the place where any plan is forged. Unfortunately Congress has ignored the illegal practices of folks coming into the country for decades….and in this case, the delinquent teenager has to fix his own mess. That is truly the challenge!
Alan,
Thanks for the reminder about long comments. I will try to do better.
I did read the post you linked. It’s like many of the things Trump says, as I said in my comment.
Of course I would not support mass deportations with no due process.
But I do not take that kind of blather seriously. It plays to some people, and Trump throws it out there as red meat and to stir up chatter.
I do take Trump’s immigration plan on his website (as opposed to a conference call with some “Alabama Leaders”) seriously.
It is not really possible to interact with your post without discussing the pros and cons of immigration. Although you think it is possible, let me suggest that it is not because the minute one starts to discuss an aspect, one finds that need to explain and set the stage.
So, I think that supporting Trump’s written immigration plan is clearly within the scope of Christian and evangelical commitment. Witness that the vast number of serious clergy and lay people who agree with the points of that plan.
The Mass Deportation Plan discussed with the Alabama Leaders is ridiculous, and wouldn’t happen to begin with.
It’s like Trump having a written, thought out plan on what to do with NASA. Then he attends a Star Trek convention and tells them that the moon is made of cheese, that when he’s President, he’s going to launch a rocket ship with a cheese knife on the end of it, shoot it to the moon, cut off a million years worth of cheese, and have the rocket return to earth with the cheese to feed everyone in the world.
So, I don’t believe the oral, mass deportation plan shared on the conference call with the Alabamians is going anywhere.
But, just in case you are wondering, I will not support it.
What I said about Trump is that he given to say all kinds of stuff that is exaggerated and untrue. It is not a good characteristic.
I thought we were discussing Trumps super duper mass deportation plan, but then you bring up the case on one, particular poor young man.
I am glad that you feel close to this young man. I have similar people in my life.
You may feel that because of your feelings for this young man, that the Bible gives you clear direction with regard to the status of all other 11 million people here illegally. I do not feel that the Bible directs me in the same way, though I feel very sorry for this young man and others in his position – which was caused along the way by a combination of people wanting to help by ignoring the law. And now he finds himself in a very bad spot.
The old adage is – “Tough facts make bad law” is certainly apt here. That is, one has to be careful about constructing rules to address one particular set of bad facts because one can end up with a very bad law – in terms of policy.
Again, no one is talking about NO immigration. We are looking at candidates with 2 different visions. And I do not believe the Bible gives us this kind of specific direction.
Louis,
I used the young man as an example to remind us that we are talking about people here and not just numbers.
I am glad that you would not support such a plan. Trump has stated this plan over and over again, by the way, to crowds of thousands. It is how he won much of his support. Build a Wall and Deport them All – not necessarily a rallying cry, but definitely the sentiment.
I am glad that if it came to what Trump said that you would oppose this policy. By the way, I think it is possible to vote for someone generally while opposing some of their policies. I think that we are at a place that we will need to give other believers grace to do this.
I understand Trump supporters who vote for him while opposing some of his policies. That is as it should be. He would be a public servant and work for us, not a king who rules by dictate. If you day that you will vote for Trump but oppose him if he enacts some of these policies, I can respect that. If we only have two choices, I think that many will be in that position.
As for me, I will vote for neither choice, but can at least respect your position here, Louis, as one who is trying to do the right thing.
Alan:
Thanks for the kind words. And I respect you, as well, for your position.
I understood your reference. A personal example always makes one pause. As I said, I know some, as well.
It’s two issues.
Secure the border first with meaningful and measureable legislative standards of achievements (or triggers) which must be met within a certain time period ….THEN we as a nation through our elected representatives can debate, discuss and then enact appropriate legislation to deal justly (as we are a both a compassionate people and a nation of laws) with those who are here illegally.
I agree with this, however securing the border is such a moving target that we really do need to define what that means. Border Patrol has already stated that they have operational control. If a secured border means no illegal crossings ever, that has been deemed impossible. A wall will not solve that either. But, if we can identify realistic goals for what border security is that satisfies all sides, then that makes sense. Border security also involves interior enforcement and identifying legitimate targets for deportation and then apprehending them. As for legal status, there are millions here already who would meet all of the agreed upon qualifications. I am for letting those select people go ahead and get started with the process. One’s life is only so long. I am specifically thinking of the DACA children.
I still remember the picture of the automatic weapons and a very terrified kid named Elian Gonzalez from the Clinton years. I would hope to find a way to oppose the type of deportation that Alan envisions Trump doing. I doubt that will actually be the way it goes down–but if it is, it’s not the right way to enforce that law.
And yes, so that whoever would like to label me a liberal may, my view is that there needs to be a firmly secured border that blocks illegal immigration and an amnesty program for those already here. That program should put restitution for losses as a priority, fairness to those who came legal as a close second. And that restitution can be paid by Tyson, Shaw Carpets, and whoever else is profiting at a grotesque level off the illegal immigrants in this country.
Mass deportations, done peacefully, probably won’t work. Done violently (and suspension of recognized rights is a violent step) it’s wrong even if it works.
“Will you also support forced mass deportation of millions of people – many who have been here for years and were either brought here against their will as small children or have citizen children who were born here?”
No. For several reasons – one being that I think it would be incredibly cruel to have a policy like he’s articulated – also there’s the fact that his plan is impractical politically, financially and procedurally – add to that – I just don’t think he serious about doing it. It’s bluster, IMO.
The reason we are having this discussion is due to economic and social disparity across various nations.
If hypothetically all nations had “equivalent” wage structures and people lived in societies free of corruption and grinding poverty then the immigration problem would not be happening.
It will take some time but immigration will eventually sort itself out. Namely, we will reach a point where people will increasingly “self-deport” and/or “stop coming.”
As many of you know this is already happening. During certain recent fiscal years more people — who are illegal — have left the USA than have entered. Of course it will take generations for all 11 million people to become “normalized”.
Regardless of what you do or don’t think about Trump, and regardless of what bombastic statements Trump makes, and regardless of who the next president is, it will take decades for this work itself out.
For better or worse, we have NAFTA and other trade agreements. At least at the margins, the increase of world trade is lifting all boats (at the expense of certain sectors of the US economy).
This will not happen in my lifetime but we will see massive adjustments of the world stage due to “internationalization” such that there won’t be pressure on migration to the USA. Two things will happen: [1] the immigration target will increasingly become Europe, and [2] the number of net immigrates to the USA from the Western Hemisphere will decrease to a trickle.
You guys are getting too excited about Trump. He has very little control of the global dynamics which are at play here. Also don’t forget check and balances on the executive such as Congress and the Courts.
Also, we should quantify how many illegal immigrants are criminals. I don’t know this answer but probably out of 11 million that number is “only” a few hundred thousand at the most.
Roger Okla City
Flash!! As many of you have probably already seen on the news: There will be one more “immigrant” coming to the USA: none other than El Chapo.
My guess is he will have a private room at a lodge near the Rocky Mountains in Southern Colorado.
It may be a few months / years before El Chapo’s paperwork is in order to come to the USA. Once he comes he is likely to remain a permanent resident.
Like Alan, I would like to see what people mean by “secure the border”. Stopping all illegal crossing is impossible. A wall is ridiculous and wouldn’t work. This is America for crying out loud, not East Germany. (yes, I know the Berlin wall was meant to keep people in, not out)
Do you mean doubling border agents? Something else? If you are going to say “first secure the border”, then that has to mean something other than wrapping America in cling film. I don’t disagree with securing the border, but honestly don’t know what that means beyond what we are trying to do now.
As to the discrepancy between what Trump says and what his “plan” is, I daresay the plan was formulated and written by someone else. Maybe that gives people comfort, maybe not.
Listen to Trump speak. He speaks at about a 6th grade level. (disclaimer: I’ve been plenty insulting about Trump, but that statement is not meant to be). Trump doesn’t do “detail”. If and when, God help us, there is a Trump presidency, I think he’ll be nothing more than a mouthpiece.
I don’t think we should take much comfort in the fact that Trump can’t or won’t do all the ridiculous things he’s said he’ll do.
Bill,
I would imagine that by “secure the border” most people mean, to the best of our ability, no person crosses that border into the US without the permission of the US Government. I do not think that we will do what it would take to reach anywhere near 100% border security. I do not think we want to do what it would take.
I am not sure why you think a wall is unbuildable. One can argue on the wisdom, but I guarantee that if we choose to build such a wall it is possible to do so.
Donald
No, I don’t think a wall is unbuildable. I just don’t think it will happen, nor will it have the desired effect if it did happen.
My biggest concern in this is that Trump seems to have zero compassion or concern about anyone. Not even those who will vote for him, or who want this big wall. That leads to ways of dealing with issues that are strong arm and bullying, which leads to mistreatment and even death of these illegals.
To have such a mass exodus such as Alan has described, the end result would end badly.
You all do realize that Alan works in this area of ministry and therefore knows more facts than any of you do. If he’s concerned, that is reason for me to be concerned or any Christian to be concerned.
I just don’t see how Christian men and women can be so anti-abortion as they claim, yet think this kind of a plan is ok.
Is the United States a nation governed by rule of law, or not? I think most reasonable Americans, including evangelical Christians would say yes. Is there an issue with the immigration laws of our nation? That interesting question is often answered with a yes and yet most people doing so cannot articulate what specifically is wrong with current immigration law. Somehow law abiding citizens who advocate the enforcement of existing law are framed as villains while those have already violated American laws are framed as victims.
Over 1.2 million people (and rising) are immigrating legally to the United States each year. Is there something wrong with that number? Should it be higher? What is the right number? If you feel the laws of our nation are unjust, articulate that. This article does not do so.
Christopher, thank you for you excellent question.
Christopher: I think the article says a lot about the inhumanity of how the law is being carried out.
Let me ask you and steve s a question. Alan writes:
“Will you stand by as a newly formed, weaponized immigration police force rolls through your community in raids in the middle of the night to clear out neighborhoods and pull parents away from screaming children? This is not sensationalism. This happens now. It happened in January in Atlanta. ”
Is this ok with you?
No. Illegal Immigration is down from its height in 2007, more Mexicans are leaving than coming, and Obama has deported more people than any president in American history and the Far Left has attacked him repeatedly for it, calling him the “Deporter in Chief.” So, none of your facts are actually correct. Also, immigration law is a confusing contradictory mess. I am against illegal immigration and am for secure borders and the rule of law. However, I also look at the situation as it is and recognize that there is a human element that should be considered and that there should be an element of mercy introduced into the equation. Plus, much of immigration law is an unfunded mandate that Congress has not appropriated funds for in either enforcement or in immigration courts to fulfill other aspects of our law that requires due process. We want 100% enforcement with mass deportation and we want it to cost nothing because we want government to be smaller, taxes to be less, and spending to go down. The overall cost on mass deportation initially is around $600 Billion with a $2 Trillion+ price tag over 20 years overall.
The Law is important. But, when both business and government essentially invited people here to work cheaply and ignore the law while they turned away and we now want to blame the immigrant and cast them out including those smuggled in when they were small children while those who benefitted from them by paying low wages and keeping them bound to employers get off without any consequences – yes, I have a major problem with that application of the “law.”
Debbi,
Amen!!!
Dwight: So glad you and Alan are a voice for the voiceless.
Alan,
Great article, man. I’m so encouraged that more and more evangelicals (especially Southern Baptists) are starting to think along these lines.
Alan – respect fully – your comment about illegally crossing the border into the United States “being a misdemeanor “and “not some terrible crime” – there are lots of things that many of us would consider serious crimes that are “simply misdemeanors” by legal code.
Here’s some examples for North Carolina:
http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Documents/App-m09.pdf
I understand what you’re trying to do – and I agree with you on much of it – especially the compassion part – but your trying to minimize the crime of one illegally infiltrating a country – which is exactly what we’re talking about – is not really helping your case in my opinion.
I am not trying to minimize it. I am saying what it is. A misdemeanor is still a crime and it is still a problem. I believe in secure borders and the rule of law. I have never wavered from that. My point involves how you deal with it. There are different sentencing guidelines and consequences for different degrees of lawbreaking. Misdemeanors and felonies are treated differently under the law. So, my question is, “How will we respond when this plan is enacted?”
I am not trying to minimize. I am calling a thing what it actually is under the law of the land. Just because some see it on the level of a felony does not make it so. If we care about the rule of law, then let’s be accurate. I might be minimizing it according to how some people see it, but my goal is to say what the thing actually is. Perhaps we should address those who enlarge it beyond what it is actually is? Other countries, like North Korea, have very stiff penalties for crossing their border illegally. America has always been different in that regard.
Alan,
I am not for calling illegally crossing our border a felony. It is currently not (in most cases).
I am not for dismissing infringing on our national sovereignty as a small insignificant crime – because it isn’t.
I am for legal and regulated immigration that helps both the immigrant family and our country. Legal immigration helps both – illegal immigration HURTS both.
I am not for executing people or throwing them in prison never to be heard from again (like north Korea). Not sure why you thought you needed to invoke that notion as if I had suggested we adopt such a policy.
I am for enforcing the rule of law and having a border and I’m not for extending the benefits of being American to those who are not (and have not legally gained legal status and/or citizenship).
I do not favor mass blanket forced deportations carried out by armed soldiers/officers in the dead of night – but I do favor deportations of those who are caught breaking our immigration laws when its called for under the law –
I am sometimes – but not always – opposed to “raids” looking for illegals.
I am not opposed to “path to legal status” after restitution/payment of penalties by the offenders for breaking the law. (but doing this without measurable and concerted and verified effort toward better border security to slow down rate of ILLEGAL immigration is pointless and simply kicking the can down the road AGAIN.)
I do not think a wall across the entire southern border paid for by Mexico is practical or even a real intention of Trump – He’s playing people with that one – but I do support increasing border agents – putting fencing/wall at certain sections as needed, and better using technology to secure the border.
I also support stiff and strong penalties for repeat offenders who employ illegals.
I support stiff and strong penalties for those aliens who repeatedly violate our sovereignty (think the guy who killed the lady in San Fran – he’d already been deported 5 times and was a known criminal.)
I oppose sanctuary localities/jurisdictions who intentionally create environments that encourage people to break our immigration laws.
I support churches and ministries ministering to the poor and needy.
Most importantly, far, far above simply meeting physical needs, I support sharing the gospel with those aliens, immigrants, whatever who are cross our paths and neighborhoods and further I support taking the gospel to those who in other regions of the world.
I also happen to believe that one can hold all of these views simultaneously and consistently and still be Christlike.
Dave, we mostly agree. I was not really directing my comment AT you. Just responding to what you said generally. We have talked about this before and I know where you stand. I was just explaining why I was using the “misdemeanor” language – not to minimize, but to accurately define what it is. I brought up North Korea as an extreme example – not directing that AT you, per se. You have good positions overall, in my opinion, not that I am the arbiter of that. This is a complex issue and I think that as long as we start with the humanity of those we are talking about and try to look at the whole situation accurately, we will often end up in reasonable positions. You do that. Thank you.
I do try hard to see it through the eyes of compassion. These are people not objects we are talking about. I just happen the think that favoring the rule of law and legal immigration is not necessarily mutually exclusive to compassion and caring for the least of these. I readily admit it can be though…
As for “mostly agreeing” – you know how to fix that, right? You just need to agree with me where we disagree then we will be both in complete agreement AND right! 😉
As Christians we are to have compassion on illegal immigrants.
As a nation, we have the right to deny them benefits and send them back home. On the other hand, I’m for legal, regulated immigration.
As some are presenting this,
those who wish to uphold the sovereignty of the USA and our immigration laws are evil;
those who violate our laws and illegally come to the USA are the victims.
If an American man illegally moves his family to another country, and that country sends them back, the suffering of the children is primarily the fault of the illegal behavior of the father.
David R. Brumbelow
“If an American man illegally moves his family to another country, and that country sends them back, the suffering of the children is primarily the fault of the illegal behavior of the father.”
I disagree David. Strongly disagree. It is our fault and it is the church’s fault if we say nothing. There are better ways! I have a hard time when someone who claims to have Christ says something like this!
But, Why? You haven’t said WHY you disagree.
If I were to side-step the whole visa/passport process and move my family to England, and then England found out and sent me back…how is that process not “primarily” (David’s word) MY FAULT? Is it MORE the fault of the Christians in England who did not speak up for the “right” of my family to stay in England?
(I will say I think it is possible to agree with David’s statement here, but disagree that it applies directly to EVERY illegal immigration situation. If my family were starving and I moved them hoping for a better job, better food, then perhaps It is not so much my “fault” as my decision to attempt to help my family, realizing that it involves some risk. )
Are you saying you have a hard time when someone who claims to be a Christian says that if a father makes decisions that result in hardship for his children, he is not primarily responsible for their situation?
David , you are correct in your statement. As far as the nonsense about the “people with not voice” they have the entire Democrat Party, the gang of 8 and the liberal press on their side acting as their voice. You can tell by the postings here now emotion and the lack of knowledge is winning the battle that is giving the USA such an unnecessary debate and problems. It is just wrong what the illegal aliens are doing to this country. If the good people in this country want to do what they percieve right than make it an individual mandate, take and support illegal aliens and their family yourself or through your church, do not try to guilt the American taxpayer to fund their own demise. American voters are always against illegal aliens staying in this country by an overwhelming majority.
Actually, American voters have shown that they favor a pathway to legal status for those who have been here for years, will pay fines and back taxes, and will go through a process/pathway to earn legal status, which is what the Gang of 8 proposed. Those are facts. Polling on this always shows a large majority of Americans being in favor of such a pathway to earned legal status.
And, many people are victims. Many are trafficked, many children are brought across the border with their families, many are lied to and told that they will be welcomed once they get here, they are brought by coyotes who cheat them and abuse them, and then they are employed by companies for cheap labor who know exactly what they are doing.
Also, the net economic benefit of illegal immigrants is higher than their actual cost to taxpayers. That has also been proven over and over again in one economic study after another.
I am totally against illegal immigration and am for LEGAL immigration. I am totally for a secure border and the rule of law. However, I recognize that we have a situation that has developed over the past 20-30 years that is very unfortunate. How do we solve it? I propose a combination of Justice and Mercy. I do not understand why you would fear that. You say that there is a “lack of knowledge” in the postings here. You really need to research this situation further and try to stay off of Numbers USA, FAIR, CIS sites and articles that feeds the anti-immigration movement. Their bias is ridiculous, as is their support for population control, abortion, and other ethnocentric approaches to keeping America’s European heritage at the forefront.
I agree with Dave Brumbelow ‘ If an American man illegally moves his family to another country, and that country sends them back, the suffering of the children is primarily the fault of the illegal behavior of the father.” How could it be ” our fault and it is the church’s fault if we say nothing. There are better ways! I have a hard time when someone who claims to have Christ says something like this!” Debbie Kaufman?
I think that the Leviticus passage does not apply for this reason: No where in the bible does it imply or that that the Alien or Sojourner was there illegally and 2) America is not Israel .
Here is a New Testament application Philemon you broke the law you have to go back to face your master.
I find it hard to understand how anyone could cast doubt on whether or not someone is a believer because they believe in close borders or have a different political view.
Greg, you are not going to get any real exchange on a meaningful level on this topic. It is emotion, the following of the press and progressive view of an open border, people are not illegal point of view. The SBC seems to be drifting into works and social justice as part of salvation. The Catholic liberation theology and many mainstream church social agenda works are seeping in by leadership design. Will opposition of the $15 minimum wage be a gauge whether you have lost your Christian values? When I very simply want the laws and security of this nation enforced am I in danger of losing my Christian values? You know based on the results of the SEC primary that the majority of SBC members voted for Trump or he would not have won. Why is the ERLC so determined to get involved in Republican nomination but the progressive Democrat get a pass because “that is the way they are and we know”.
Not any real exchange on a meaningful level? You mean that everyone is not going to just slovenly agree with you and say, “Oh wait! You’re right! Children brought here as babies who are now 20 years old should be rounded up and sent back to countries that they have never been to before all so you can feel SAFER.”
That is just wrong. No. You won’t get agreement from me on that. The inability to even consider for a moment that there should be some kind of compromise or mercy extended to people who didn’t even choose to commit a crime is something that says that you are operating from blind ideology instead of basic common sense. No, my thinking is not infected by some kind of progressive politics. It is actually informed by a basic reading of God’s Word that says that people should be treated with justice and mercy.
No one here is calling for open borders. No one here is calling for an abandonment of the rule of law. I could care less who the Deep South voted for in a presidential election. The Deep South’s track record on many issues is not something to write home about. A plurality does not truth make.
Sure, protect your family. Protect the nation. Secure the borders. But, if you cannot find a way to deal compassionately with people caught in the middle of all of this and you won’t grant for exceptions in this situation, then I won’t call your Christianity into question because it is Christ alone who saves. But, I will say that your application of it to people caught in difficult situations is suspect.
Philemon? You want to bring up slavery under the Roman system and compare it to this? Really? We live in a Democratic Republic and “we the people” are the ones who influence and set the law of the land. The authority to rule is based on the consent of the governed, not the edicts of emperors and kings. I am advocating for a position that reflects Biblical truth. You are telling slaves to return to their masters? Really?
And, I know that America is not Israel. I said have said that many times. But, the church is to be “salt and light” in our culture and we are to seek to influence the larger society in biblical ways. There is nothing godly about ripping families apart and sending people back to countries that they have no memory of just because it makes you feel safer – especially when they are no threat to you.
Amen Alan!
And Steve S: Yes, there is certainly some emotion involved, called caring, compassion, loving. More ought to allow it as it is the fruit of the Spirit and is who we are as Christians. The Christians battle cry is not “Onward Christian Soldiers” or at least it shouldn’t be. It is as Christ said, “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Remember this. Emotion and feelings is what makes us human beings. It is a gift from God. To not feel anything and to shut down emotions relying completely on the brain or “logic” is how Hitler got those under him to do the terrible atrocities they did and not feel a thing. It was just duty.The people they killed or tortured were not human beings in their eyes. They quit feeling. No emotion.
Also, it’s how ISIS operates by not feeling anything or getting a high by the horrible death and suffering of others they deem inferior. It’s emotion that stops us as humans from doing horrible things to another human being. Emotion is necessary for justice and grace to begin.
No emotion is a dangerous thing.
Lol! Was expecting Godwins law to be invoked at any moment…..and Debbie did not disappoint.
And Tarheel, yours is a perfect example of following sheep and meer words shaping your thinking.
Let’s take “Godwins Law” for an example. One man, mind you not a group, but one man says to use Hitler as an example where I believe appropriate, he (one man) does not, and makes it a “law”, everyone refers to it every time the Holocaust or Hitler is mentioned where appropriate as I believe it is in this case.
Supposedly the word of one man, means that the debate is lost. One man caused people such as yourself to take it as “law”. But you see I disagree with Godwins law and still use it where I deem appropriate. If we don’t learn from history we are bound to repeat it.
But Tarheel, you allow that one man in 1990 to teach you how to think. I choose not to.
On top of that, Debbie is just flat out wrong. Hitler’s movement was very emotionally charged. You will find that most movements that go wrong and hurt many people are characterized by unbridled passions. Hitler riled up people’s emotions.
Now if you would have used the word compassion in the place of emotion, then you would have been right. Hate is an emotion, anger is an emotion.
John: I disagree. There was no emotion, no feeling at all. It was like brainwashing occurred, not a stirring of any emotion. Read the history. Look at their faces. No emotion. No feeling, nothing. It was their thoughts that were changed, not their emotion.
I am quite the student of history, Debbie, and Hitler used and stirred up the anger and resentment that the German people were already feeling in order to propel him to power. Anger is an emotion, Debbie, and it doesn’t cause people to do anything good.
But yes compassion might have been a better word to use.
I would disagree that anger doesn’t cause people to do good. It’s anger at the way these immigrants are treated that brought attention to this situation, granted along with compassion, but anger was involved as well. Anger is not always a bad emotion.
It’s anger at the way women or blacks were treated or anger at other mistreatments that caused awareness and change. I know I am angry at this situation.
When anger does something good it is because it is godly anger, not human anger. James tells us the wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God.
I am going to go further and say that the Holocaust was carried out by training reasonable people to obey orders from a person of authority. Taking away emotion and making a person an object, an insignificant such as I believe is being done toward immigrants. As was done to blacks in our history. They were non-human so the mistreatment was accepted.
Some see the word illegal immigrant and that changes them into a non-human and therefore the consequences to them such as children being pulled from their parents and vice-versa is part of the consequences and doesn’t matter. They are non-human. This is thought with no emotion, although not said. The emotion, if there is any, being possibly self survival rather than self-sacrifice for another human being.
Debbie…it was a joke. A joke. Har, har. Laugh a little. Loosen up. Relax. Every point of disagreement is not a cause for an all out assault.
Godwin’s law seems to be valid though. Most internet discussions I’ve seen that are of a highly charged emotional/passionate nature end up there at some point….its true. Someone will wither compare a situation or a person to Hitler/Holocaust. (There are other “laws” too….basically the effort to sensationalize a point or discussion is almost certain to come up at some point in an internet discussion.
I was not attacking you – I was actually waiting to see who would go there first….and it happened to be you. That’s all. Chillax.
😉
Not that I buy that excuse for a second Tarheel, but on this subject I don’t joke. It’s too serious and devastating for those illegals facing what Alan has described. There is a time to joke, this isn’t it.
“Why is the ERLC so determined to get involved in Republican nomination but the progressive Democrat get a pass because “that is the way they are and we know”.”
This has been answered ad nauseum and based on the answers given here, the ERLC is doing and saying the right things. If we don’t clean up ourselves, what the Democrats do doesn’t really matter. Corruption and wrong thinking does not belong in the thinking and behavior of Christians.
I have not ever said no one was a believer if they believe as you do Greg. I agree with Alan’s post in that the application of that role of a believer is terribly misapplied. It does go against what the scripture teaches we are in Christ and that includes our thinking. Alan’s comment was right on the mark and he said it better than I could have.
I will say that I could not tell you were Christ followers by your comments.
But, I will say this, you and I totally agree about this immigration issue. The Mexican people that I have been associated with only make America a better place.
Thank you John, excellent statement and on this we do agree.
The Mexican and Honduran people that I know are wonderful people. They’re hard working people, who are nice and friendly.
David
There was one of those “interesting facts” in the Time Magazine I got today. It said that 17% of the US workforce was foreign born.
The attacks and violence against Trump supporters is systemic. It’s happening in many, many places. And, I’m not just talking about people screaming at them, either. I’m talking about bottles being thrown, punches being thrown, eggs being thrown, cars being vandalized, spitting on people, cursing people, ganging up on a person and beating him.
And, still no word of condemnation from all the Never Trump and Stop Trump people, who are not violent.
crickets.
David, there is no denying this fact about the liberal mainstream press and its coverage- what if the anti Trump protestors were anti Clinton protestors doing the same actions with flags from Germany, shutting down and attacking Democrat rallies. What would the news coverage look and sound like. How many articles would Dr. Moore and others write about the influence of Trump on civil society and why the racist Trump supporters are afraid of peaceful rallies. Romney the man who stayed in a church who officially discriminated against black people now is an expert on racism? How much press and coverage has Romney gotten lately, more than he did running against Obama. There is even some of the press who are alibiing the anti Trump violence because, well, its Trump. This election will have an effect on the SBC once the general membership find out what the leadership is up to. The ERLC was to present SBC viewpoint and position to the secular world, now its in endorsing and presenting the secular view to the SBC. No need for the ERLC except to keep a few high salaried people going and exchanging meeting dates and selling books. A pro abortion, gay advocate, anti God party is preferable to Trump who will work with the system because that is what he does. Cannot wait to see what happens but if Trump loses it is end of Republican Party for sure. The Romney wing should leave if Trump wins . I was a Republican by default as I could not be in Democrat party.