Posted by 
Pushing for open borders is the latest fad for the Religious and Evangelical Left. The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), National Council of Churches (NCC) and United Methodist Council of Bishops have all recently chimed in, essentially endorsing New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s effort to revive the failed 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIR) offering higher legal immigration and eventual amnesty for existing illegals.
Does the Bible specifically call for a virtual open borders policy and abrogation of immigration law enforcement? Not really. The Religious Left, now as always, selectively extracts Scripture to justify its latest political cause. Broad biblical calls for mercy and compassion always mystically mandate the Left’s most recent social and cultural demands.
The Religious Left insistence on virtual immigration law non-enforcement and near open borders often depends on mythologizing the “sojourners” of the Bible, whom liberal prelates insist were holy immigrants entitled to limitless hospitality from whatever nation they blessed with a visit. Of course, most of these biblical sojourners had the permission of the civil authority when visiting a foreign land, as Abraham did in Egypt, until Pharaoh compelled him to leave. The Religious Left usually forgets that part.
In typical fashion, the Religious Left on immigration law, as on so many other issues, falsely claims that Christianity has a clear political teaching. It also chronically confuses the church’s responsibilities with the government’s, imagines that divine grace works through unlimited state welfare programs, ignores scriptural injunctions for law enforcement, neglects to distinguish morally between legal and illegal immigrants, usually avoids contrasting refugees fleeing for their lives compared to immigrants seeking economic advance, fails to admit that open U.S. borders benefits Mexicans who can walk into the country at the expense of more impoverished Asians and Africans who must wait in line, patronizingly assumes that all immigrants have the same interchangeable interests; disregards the impact of unregulated immigration on lower income Americans as well as on legal immigrants; ignores national security concerns, and insists that the American people, including its foreign born, uniquely among all the world’s nations, must unendingly offer automatic citizenship and subsidies to a global population.
One of the least thoughtful of recent religious immigration declarations came from the United Methodist Council of Bishops earlier this year. Swept away in their spiritual euphoria over unrestricted immigration, they insisted that “welcoming the sojourner is so vital to the expression of Christian faith that to engage in this form of hospitality is to participate in our own salvation.”
Salvation by immigration activism? It’s a new theological twist that might raise the eyebrows of Methodist founder John Wesley. The bishops, as supposed heirs to Wesley, insisted that “we experience redemptive liberation through relationships with migrants in our communities.” Apparently borders do not matter. “The solidarity we share through Christ eliminates the boundaries and barriers which exclude and isolate,” they insisted. “The sojourners we are called to love are our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters; indeed, they are us.”
Of course, the bishops conflate the church’s mission, which is to offer salvation and ministry to all in need, with the state’s divinely ordained mandate, which is to protect its population and enforce the law. Does the civil law matter at all? Christ thought so, when he commanded compliance with Caesar. But the bishops avoid deep theological reflection, preferring to rhapsodize about sojourners, among whom Jesus was apparently one, since He was an infant refugee in Egypt. Of course, the Holy Family was escaping Herod’s murderous intent, and remained in Egypt temporarily and, presumably, legally.
Revealing their far-left perspective, the bishops naturally fault the U.S. for ostensibly forcing immigrants to relocate to the U.S. “U.S. immigration policy must take into consideration the fact that today many immigrants are forced to leave their homes due to economic and foreign policies of the United States,” they matter of factly assert. “In addition, the growing militarism along the border with Mexico further aggravates the suffering of immigrants and border communities as it exposes immigrants and communities to greater violence and mistreatment. Because of all of these circumstances immigrants are forced to live in the shadows of society to avoid being exploited thus living lives of constant fear and insecurity.”
Which U.S. “economic and foreign policies” compel immigrants to leave their homes and relocate to the U.S.? Critics of liberalized immigration might actually agree, pointing out that lax U.S. immigration enforcement encourages Mexicans and Central Americans to abandon their own struggling communities in search of greater income in the U.S. But presumably the United Methodist bishops, like frenzied anti-globalization protesters, mystically believe that U.S. economic and political imperialism impoverishes other nations. After all, the U.S. is the fount of most injustice in the world today, the Religious Left innately assumes. Clearer minds might ask if Latin America would be wealthier or poorer if the U.S. did not exist as the primary historic engine of global economic growth.
The bishops reluctantly acknowledged that “all nations have the right to secure their borders,” even while condemning U.S. efforts to enforce its immigration law as “militarization.” They committed themselves to “comprehensive immigration reform (CIR),” the code phrase for the Schumer initiative, and “affirm President Obama for his leadership in moving the immigration agenda to the forefront of public discourse and decision making.” The bishops endorsed all the key points of CIR legislation, including a “pathway to citizenship,” wider family reunification, more worker visas, more legal rights and collective bargaining for immigrants, including the “undocumented,” and eliminating private detention centers.
Do the bishops favor any immigration restrictions or law enforcement? They do not say, but by implication do not. Neither are they concerned about unrestricted immigration’s economic impact on low-income Americans, including legal immigrants. Nor are they concerned about the demographically and economically corrosive impact of constant emigration on many Mexican and Central American communities. Nor do they give any special attention to refugees, including persecuted Christians, who might merit priority over economic immigrants. Nor do they mention U.S. national security and law enforcement concerns about unrestricted immigration. Nor do the bishops comment on the spiritual implications of widespread disregard for the law.
Instead, the United Methodist bishops, akin to similar political stances by the NCC and NAE, condescendingly liken all immigrants everywhere to noble biblical sojourners, who supposedly wondered the earth without regard for borders. Contrary to the bishops’ mythology, all rulers, in Bible times and now, have to enforce some border law. The kind of demographic chaos the Religious Left advocates is suitable for multicultural fantasies. It is not deeply rooted in Christian ethical teaching or compassion.
re:
Abraham being sent away
~~The first Hebrew was a man named Abraham who lived in the land of Ur, known today as Iraq. He had a wife, Sarah, who was his half-sister (20:12), and a nephew named Lot. Abraham’s father, Terah, led the family to the land of Canaan. On the way, he came first to Haran, a place far north of Canaan, where they settled. Terah died there at the age of 205 years.
Abraham had a revelation that God told him to continue on to Canaan where he will be the first to settle in the Promised Land. So Abraham left Haran for Canaan but he had to detour to Egypt for food because of a great famine. As he approached Egypt, he feared the Egyptians would kill him because his wife Sarah was beautiful. So they both agreed that Sarah would pose as his sister. When Pharaoh’s officials saw that Sarah was beautiful, the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. For this, Pharaoh made Abraham wealthy.
But God afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plague because of Sarah. Pharaoh, realizing he was deceived, released Sarah and sent the two away.
~ `
it is Tooley who is cherrypicking verses — what a hypocrit!!
The Pharaoh felt decieved due to his own selfishness.
Who are Mexicans decieving by asking for work to feed their families?
I guess FPM conviently forgets how many countries have opened their borders for all the displaced Jews through history.
Sense Abraham is the first Jew and came from Iraq, how many pre-caanan Jews have been killed with post caanan Jews cheering?
the authorites must enhence the security of borders to stop smuggling drugs and weapons to the usa soil and should cooperate with mixeco to block our borders and also mixican borders to pervent the terrorists sneaking into north america.
A true look at Christianity's past will show they haven't a leg to stand on. The Torah does not advocate giving anyone a free handout. In fact, one must work… have a job…teach their children a trade, etc.. The verses that are paraphrased previously are totally out of context and very incorrect. Our country has the right to protect itself. The United States is NOT a Christian country. It is a country that the majority of people observe that religion (separation of church and state).
You will also notice that they do not speak about the twenty to twenty two Americans that die daily at the hands of illegal aliens either by driving under the enfluence or murder outright. They also ignore the large number of child molestation by Ilegal aliens as well just add those daily numbers up to a weekly number then monthly. Hell that is more Americans being killed by illegal aliens than die in the current wars not to mention those injured and maimed. This is a national disgrace and for all the lefts false alligations against GW Bush I would support prosecuting him criminally for failing to secure our border and violating his oath to protect Americans from invasion. This travesty has got to stop and the next election when we dump Obuma and Harry and Nancy the new leadership had better know they must secure the border.
There is nothing in the constitution about seperation of church and state those words do not appear there is however an Establishment Clause that was meant to prevent the Federal Gov. from proclaiming a state religion like the Church of England. It was never the intent of the framers to ban people of faith from the public square or to forbid them the exercise of there faith or free speech. At one time there were church services held right in the Congressional assembly room each Sunday.
Every American should see this video !
The ambition of Islam to conquer the world.
For centuries Islam of the militants have been on the march to conquer the world. We did not notice because we chose not to notice. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in1920 by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt and was in deep confrontation with the Egyptian government. The current goals for Islam to achieve global domination for a Muslim Caliphate: a world under strict Islamic “Sharia” law, pulling Muslims back to the 7th Century.
Consult : http://xrl.us/bf66jj
Are you kidding me? If countries had opened their borders for the displaced Jews then 6 million wouldn't died in the Holocaust. The countries of the world didn't open their borders. Witness the juorney of the S.S. St. Louis, which went from country to country seeking asylum. The Jews were sent back to Europe – to be killed.
What's with this pre-cannan Jews stuff? The Canaanites were pagans, not Jews. The Muslims aren't Jews, either. And no one is cheering their deaths. I think it's the other way around – witness the Sbarro bombing and 9/11 as to who was cheering the death of whom.
We think that today's administration under President Obama or previous political parties had a goal of enforcing our immigration laws. But corrupt politicians intervened on behalf of the open border fanatics and special interest lobbyists. As with E-Verify that has become a spotlighted enforcement law, because it was originally nearly tabled by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). But public uproar caused them to forcibly change their decisions and fully fund E-Verify for another 3 years. WITHOUT PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CAVED-IN? Right now it is the–ONLY–true enforcement tool implemented, but it is only as good–IF–business owners are forced to use it. Even though hundreds of thousands of companies have now decided to apply it, yet it is not MANDATORY? It is up to the discretion of employers? In a few states Representatives have introduced it into law, as with the fed's issuing an ultimatum that all contractors/subcontractors must use E-Verify. Remember E-Verify does not need buses for deportation? Those here will self-deport. It will take time, but without access to jobs–THEY EVENTUALLY WILL LEAVE. THEY CALL IT “ATTRITION?”
Justifiably bloggers should be either criticized for their anti-sovereignty stand, or praised for informing the unaware public of the taxpayers money needed to fund a 2009-2010 Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Rewarding the millions already illegally squatting here, with the costs to support families, children and those kin who will come here through sponsorship. THEN THE MILLIONS MORE WHO HAVE HEARD THE CALL FOR AMNESTY AND RUSH TO GET HERE FROM POOR NATIONS, BEFORE THE NEW LAW MATERIALIZES?
House Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times today He stated that the Washington Times had slammed the Obama Administration for hardened enforcement. While the opposite reaction came from the open border advocates saying there was too much enforcement. However Rep. Smith determined the opposite? This is his statement:-
* Rescinding of the “no-match” rule that prevents the Social Security Administration from contacting employers when a new hires name and social security number don't match their records. “Without this protection, many employers will continue to employ individuals they know are illegal and are taking jobs that should go to citizens and legal residents,” Smith said.
* Repeal of REAL ID in lieu of PASS ID, which makes it easier for illegal aliens to obtain a driver's license. “This makes it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the country. And it can provide terrorists with a legitimate ID – as we saw with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists, who between them obtained 30 driver's licenses and ID cards,” Smith said.
* Lack of funding for an airport biometric exit system that is part of a DHS proposal to monitor when foreign visitors leave the country. “40 percent of all 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States entered the country legally but overstayed their visas. This program will show who did not leave the country when they should have,” Smith said.
* Restricted the 287(g) program by limiting the ways local law enforcement officials can help federal immigration enforcement officials.
* No funding for border fence, which was required by the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
* Signing the CHIP bill making it easier for illegal aliens to get health care.
* Reduced work site enforcement by shifting the focus away from the illegal workers and onto the businesses that hire them.
* Allow states to provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens even though it violate federal law.
Reading the Washington Times indicates to me, that they are pro illegal immigration, that is not in the American workers interest. They have consistently reacted to any enforcement of laws. They are obviously adverse to any immigration restriction, as the majority of the national press have indicated to us. Unlike the rural media who do not condone DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's rush to OVERPOPULATION through another BLANKET AMNESTY? Grade your Senator of Congressman/Woman on NUMBERSUSA website. Call them and reprimand them for approving another AMNESTY or anything else at 202-224-3121. The people of America have been blindsided to long and must become more involved. We all no by now we cannot trust our government anymore to do the right thing for all of us. To survive we must fight back or financially–SINK. Washington is truly a corrupt place, where taxpayers money is the bargaining chip. Read all at JUDICIAL WATCH, CAPSWEB, ALIPAC, AMERICAN PATROL & THE DARK SIDE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
jackhampton,
You got all of that exactly right. Unfortunately, it is a never ending battle to fight against oversimplified slogans and well publicized myths.
Be careful of the next election. You saw what we had been offered by both parties ever since Reagan.
You are misrepresenting the situation at the time. One country you conveinitly didn't mention was the U.S.. When these Jews were turned away at Lady Liberty, they also were turned away in countries with the likes of Cuba.
No one had room for nobody in those times due to the current global crises and it wasn't only Jews.
We were in the bouts of the Greatest Depression of all time.
Prior the Depression, we brought in hundreds of thousands of immigrants of all nationalities and many for reasons of excaping abusive governments.
So don't feel like the Jews were getting any sort of special treatment.
The truth is, you can find Jews in countries all over the world that have opened their doors for them.
Russia, U.S., UK, China, Canada, — I obviously can't name all.
I don't agree with letting Mexican Immigrants into this country as the article from Tooley suggests,
what I'm doing is building a case against Tooley's claims due to my experience of the constant bullshit I find on this website.
I obviously don't know everything and neither do you but what I do find is that nearly 100% of the time, when I research the claims in an FPM article, there are huge distortions so much and so often that I don't even bother to waste my time reading the article first. I'll find one distortion and remark about it which I did about the distortion of Abraham
Regarding no one cheering the deaths:
I disagree with you: many have claimed a “jihad”against Muslims on this website which I detest.
If your going to be aggressive against a particular religion and group all of them together as a bad thing, surely you will celebrate the defeat and subjugation of the people of this religion.
It is no secret that Horowitz doesn't want Muslims to have representation in my country while as a Jew, he knows this has happened a lot to his people is an understatement.
Horowitize and the propoganda that his spreads is a disease to humanity and the progress towards peace.
He lies constantly.
This pre-canna stuff is a rebuttal to the proposed authority Jews claim to have over the interpretation and representation of God.
The distortion and abuse by Jews in this regard is their ancient text of who is who and who deserves what and who is a race and who isn't.
Science has come along way Louis sense these distorted Biblical “Cheery picking”claims by Jews have started.
Through DNA testing we have proven that the genes (race)of the whole Babylonian Empire are interconnected and Jews are not this seperate identity that they love to subjugate on the rest of the world.
In saying that, the case of creating the State of Israel is becomming weaker as the days progress.
I can say pre-cannan or post cannan or pre-clown or post-clown — I can make shit up just as much as you clowns do.
The truth is liberal Christians are acting out of compassion and it has nothing to do with your interpretation of the Bible.
Cheers,
Bushlikes Dick
One more thing Louis,
read about Jesus and Samaritian — The liberal Christians behavior is much closer to Biblical truth than Tooley's distorted premise of Abraham
Your really think the Mexican Government gives a rats ass about us and our stink'n border?
There are two things that the Mexican government cares about regarding us:
1. Stop the violence of the border for the purpose of not scaring American tourist from coming to Mexico to spend money there.
2. Allow the border to be fluid as possilble so that illegals can make money here and send it back to Mexico — the more the better. If they have to collect wellfare then so be it. If their children can attend our schools off the backs of U.S. taxpayer — that is great. Then they will become educated enough to represent Mexico's interest (lobby) in our government — “Viva Mexico!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
I hear it and see it a lot living in Los Angeles.
Also, the most significant influence in the Mexican government is the Mexican Mafia who make a living off of selling illegal drugs to us.
Do you really believe Mexico has anything to benefit from by you ideas?
BTW– from my understanding — weapons go south more than north. We maintain the constitutional right to bear arms and you can buy your fricken gun right here. The black market is in Mexico
The Mexican Constitution guarantees the right of Mexicans to possess arms. Even so, gun control laws in Mexico are very strict, and police discretion in enforcement makes possession of firearms of greater than .22 very difficult.
Jean H.,
First you meantion that Christians don't have a leg to stand on then you interpret the Torah of not giving anyone a freehand out while disregarding Jesus and the good Samaritan.
Then you go on to say our country has the right to protect itself which is correct but what are you referring to?
I don't know about you and your position on this —just asking.
Sense this isn't a country built on the foundation of the Christian Religion ( nevermind the fact that the majority of us are Christians)
Would you agree with Bush indirectly declaring a (Christain) Crusade against Muslims post 9/11?
Also regarding separation of church and state — there is'nt such an admendent in the constitution that states that under the context you are speaking — sure, it is agrued and debated in the Supreme Court but we can not really come to a consensus on exactly what the forefathers meant in their debates of the time.
It is widely believed and interpreted that the forefathers are protecting our right to practice whatever religion we choose — not so much as to not allow religion to influence our government.
So a true look at Christianit's past is the emulation of the life of Christ and you are going to have to show me verses in the new testament to back up your claim.
bush:
I think you're misreading Horowitz and his fellows. He doesn't hate all Muslims. He is alerting folks to the threat posed by certain Muslims who espouse a “jihadist” philosophy. After 9/11,1 I don't think anyone can dispute that such people exist. Horowitz and Robert Spencer reach out to moderate Muslims who denounce the use of violence. I have never read an article on FPM where Horowitz , or anyone else, was advocating violence against Muslims. As for Jews, they are not a race and nothing in their ancient text says they are. They, like Muslims, are people who are united through faith in a religion. The case for creating the State of Israel has nothing to do with Jews being a race. You have the right to disagree with me, that's what the 1st amendment to the US Constitution is all about.
All the best,
Louis
I did not vote for a RINO last time nor will I vote for a RINO ever again. I wrote in Palins name in the box. If she bones up on foriegn affairs she can win it all. So can Romney.