In reply to Rongagin71 I'm of the opinion that the world of our childhood is not what we thought it was. Nostalgia can be a powerful drug.

And even if it was, it wasn't a very good world for lots and lots of people, and we shouldn't want to go backwards in those aspects.

Change is inevitable.
Who gets to decide is the issue.

The typical explanation is that politicians are power hungry.
In the modern world, I explain that desire for power not just as ego,
but also "The bigger the contract, the bigger the kickback"
with such huge business deals now that corruption is inevitable

In reply to AGC

AGC said:

---

No, you need to read the argument that's being posted: that love and charity have no boundaries or limit for the Christian.

---

Well love and charity don't have limits, but certainly their are boundaries in sense because its not love if people are allowed to perpetuate their own demise because of their choices.

I think specific examples are always better. We should certainly feed/cloth/shelter those who make it here illegally, but then they should be sent back unless they have unique circumstances. Single males of a certain age should definitely be expedited back.

On the other hand....indiscriminate violence to dissuade people from coming is not love and charity.

In reply to BluHorseShu

BluHorseShu said:

---

AGC said:

---

No, you need to read the argument that's being posted: that love and charity have no boundaries or limit for the Christian.

---

Well love and charity don't have limits, but certainly their are boundaries in sense because its not love if people are allowed to perpetuate their own demise because of their choices.

I think specific examples are always better. We should certainly feed/cloth/shelter those who make it here illegally, but then they should be sent back unless they have unique circumstances. Single males of a certain age should definitely be expedited back.

On the other hand....indiscriminate violence to dissuade people from coming is not love and charity.

---

Yes, that was the point. First feed yourself, your children, your church, neighborhood, etc. then care for foreigners as best you can using discernment instead of blanket acceptance of anyone and everyone.

In reply to BluHorseShu

BluHorseShu said:

---

AGC said:

---

No, you need to read the argument that's being posted: that love and charity have no boundaries or limit for the Christian.

---

Well love and charity don't have limits, but certainly their are boundaries in sense because its not love if people are allowed to perpetuate their own demise because of their choices.

I think specific examples are always better. We should certainly feed/cloth/shelter those who make it here illegally, but then they should be sent back unless they have unique circumstances. Single males of a certain age should definitely be expedited back.

On the other hand....indiscriminate violence to dissuade people from coming is not love and charity.

---

The question is: what's the point at which you're encouraging, and even helping people to contravene a just law?
Some people don't agree that we have a right to sovereignty at all. I think I can infer you don't think that based on your comment above. So clearly at that point, it's not an act of love.

In reply to Bob Lee

Bob Lee said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AGC said:

---

No, you need to read the argument that's being posted: that love and charity have no boundaries or limit for the Christian.

---

Well love and charity don't have limits, but certainly their are boundaries in sense because its not love if people are allowed to perpetuate their own demise because of their choices.

I think specific examples are always better. We should certainly feed/cloth/shelter those who make it here illegally, but then they should be sent back unless they have unique circumstances. Single males of a certain age should definitely be expedited back.

On the other hand....indiscriminate violence to dissuade people from coming is not love and charity.

---

The question is: what's the point at which you're encouraging, and even helping people to contravene a just law?
Some people don't agree that we have a right to sovereignty at all. I think I can infer you don't think that based on your comment above. So clearly at that point, it's not an act of love.

---

Well, you'd be wrong. We have the right to sovereignty that doesn't step out from and contradict God's sovereignty.

I think if someone offered a woman and her child, both illegally in the U.S., food if they were starving...that is a good thing IF they also make efforts to have them repatriated to their country. To see them starving and instead berate them for being here illegally is not charitable.

And lets not kid ourselves. There is a large group of people that hate illegal immigrants and have no qualms about any harm that comes to them. So my belief is that we can significantly impede the flow, return those who are here illegally and do it in a charitble way and not be *******s about it.

There's another angle here that I don't think has been touched on that is the fact that we really do need immigration.

The US birthrate has been in decline for a couple of decades and the working age population continues to constrict. That's going to become more and more of a problem for our economy.

In reply to Macarthur That is part of the reason we take so many LEGAL immigrants.
Jeez, I bet something like half the young medical doctors in the U.S. were educated in other countries.
Nevertheless, we are currently overpopulated in many areas, especially large cities where these illegal immigrants tend to go - there is NOT enough money to pay for their housing, food, education, policing, etc.
without taking from our already large needy population.
We are going to MORE automation and LESS labor, this is 2024 not 1924.

In reply to Rongagin71 The legal immigration we have coming in isn't even close to what we need to maintain our work force. And I'm not talking about foreign doctors. I've seen estimates that around 200,000 doctors currently are foreign born. That's a small fraction of what is needed.

Sure, automation will help with some of this, but I don't think it's going to support at the rate needed.

In reply to Rongagin71

Rongagin71 said:

---

That is part of the reason we take so many LEGAL immigrants.
Jeez, I bet something like half the young medical doctors in the U.S. were educated in other countries.
Nevertheless, we are currently overpopulated in many areas, especially large cities where these illegal immigrants tend to go - there is NOT enough money to pay for their housing, food, education, policing, etc.
without taking from our already large needy population.
We are going to MORE automation and LESS labor, this is 2024 not 1924.

---

This is part of the problem - the framing of the issue.

It's been shown time and time again with data that immigration is a net positive from a 'what they pay in taxes vs. what they take out in benefits'.

Hmm, it's almost like these studies can differentiate between legal and undocumented.

In reply to BluHorseShu

BluHorseShu said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AGC said:

---

No, you need to read the argument that's being posted: that love and charity have no boundaries or limit for the Christian.

---

Well love and charity don't have limits, but certainly their are boundaries in sense because its not love if people are allowed to perpetuate their own demise because of their choices.

I think specific examples are always better. We should certainly feed/cloth/shelter those who make it here illegally, but then they should be sent back unless they have unique circumstances. Single males of a certain age should definitely be expedited back.

On the other hand....indiscriminate violence to dissuade people from coming is not love and charity.

---

The question is: what's the point at which you're encouraging, and even helping people to contravene a just law?
Some people don't agree that we have a right to sovereignty at all. I think I can infer you don't think that based on your comment above. So clearly at that point, it's not an act of love.

---

Well, you'd be wrong. We have the right to sovereignty that doesn't step out from and contradict God's sovereignty.

I think if someone offered a woman and her child, both illegally in the U.S., food if they were starving...that is a good thing IF they also make efforts to have them repatriated to their country. To see them starving and instead berate them for being here illegally is not charitable.

And lets not kid ourselves. There is a large group of people that hate illegal immigrants and have no qualms about any harm that comes to them. So my belief is that we can significantly impede the flow, return those who are here illegally and do it in a charitble way and not be *******s about it.

---

What am I wrong about? I don't think I'm disagreeing with what you've written, and I think criminal aliens deserve the same treatment as other criminals especially including food. I'm only talking about these organization which ostensibly are charitable, but are actually a cog in a larger mechanism through which illegal immigrants cross our borders, and never leave.

In reply to Macarthur

Macarthur said:

---

There's another angle here that I don't think has been touched on that is the fact that we really do need immigration.

The US birthrate has been in decline for a couple of decades and the working age population continues to constrict. That's going to become more and more of a problem for our economy.

---

I don't disagree that we are going to have to replace our aging population once the workforce starts to shrink. It absolutely will have to happen, and I don't dislike the idea of importing people from more religious cultures as long as they're Christians. The key is going to be doing it on our terms, to the benefit of the country and not to its detriment. That's very important.

In reply to Bob Lee Agree completely that we need controls so that it's done properly. I would disagree on having some sort of faith test but we do need to control our borders.

Again, the biggest issue, IMO, is how both sides want to use it as a political tool and have very little political will to make real changes.

And stepping back even further, I see very little talk about the circumstances that have been created that have caused people to risk their lives and the lives of their children to try and come here. Me thinks Americans are very uncomfortable thinking about how our habits and meddling have actually contributed to the upheaval many of these places are experiencing. That's why I think it's very disingenuous to turn our nose up and just tell people to go back, and even more laughable, to go back and try to fix their counties problems.

In reply to Macarthur

Macarthur said:

---

Hmm, it's almost like these studies can differentiate between legal and undocumented.

---

It's a poor study if it cannot.

This reminds me of a physical with my doctor about a year ago.
He asked me why I never took the COVID "vaccine".
I explained that I had COVID early on and once I had natural immunity that I wasn't interested in making Pfizer even richer, particularly since they were asking people to take 3 or 4 boosters inside the first year after taking the shot. So many boosters means the shot is not very effective no matter what stats get thrown out.
BTW, I recently took a flu booster - but if that shot came from a "hot batch" and injures me, I will be able to sue.

In reply to Macarthur

Macarthur said:

---

Agree completely that we need controls so that it's done properly. I would disagree on having some sort of faith test but we do need to control our borders.

Again, the biggest issue, IMO, is how both sides want to use it as a political tool and have very little political will to make real changes.

And stepping back even further, I see very little talk about the circumstances that have been created that have caused people to risk their lives and the lives of their children to try and come here. Me thinks Americans are very uncomfortable thinking about how our habits and meddling have actually contributed to the upheaval many of these places are experiencing. That's why I think it's very disingenuous to turn our nose up and just tell people to go back, and even more laughable, to go back and try to fix their counties problems.

---

The truth is generally more nuanced than just laying the responsibility for circumstances in other countries at the foot of U.S. intervention. We can probably have a separate conversation about particulars, but it almost never is true that we have directly caused such dire circumstances. Us and us alone. It's just not true. So it doesn't follow that we have a unique obligation to them that they be allowed to participate in our society with all the privileges that come with that.

In reply to Bob Lee Agree and disagree. I don't think anyone is saying we have 100% responsibility. But to deny that we don't have a huge influence on this hemisphere is just silly. So by extension, I do think we are uniquely positioned in the hemisphere to be a big part of the solution.

People like OP make it painfully aware to me that this country will never be what it used to be.

In reply to cevans_40

cevans_40 said:

---

People like OP make it painfully aware to me that this country will never be what it used to be.

---

Depends on what you mean? In a lot of cases, that's a good thing.

In reply to ramblin_ag02

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

There's really only one religious side to the discussion. OT and NT and church teachings are all pretty unanimous about how we should treat immigrants, foreigners, and travelers. All the counterarguments are either practical or political, not religious. Territorial defense and integrity, whether home or country, isn't a Christian religious concept.

---

Working for a living or selling yourself into slavery and leaving behind your religion and customs sure is, though. How much of this OT/NT lense are we going to look through?

---

That was not a value judgement, just pointing out a pet peeve of mine. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Christian teaching because it isn't prudent or it isn't pragmatic or it doesn't fit the situation. My pet peeve is people trying to make those arguments religious. Whether it is foul language, dress codes, alcohol use, or immigration, people who are contrary to the basic and fundamental Christian teachings on the subject like to think their principled disagreement is divinely inspired in way, shape or form. It's not. There is only one Christian teaching on the issue.

I think it's a legitimate point to say that we can't afford to take care of a horde of foreigners coming into our country, but there is no Christian religious basis for that argument

---

So why not leave religion out of it. You don't need any religion to bolster your legitimate point.

In reply to Blitz88 What you call a "grift" many others call it "being the hands and feet of Christ." Look into a little more and it is not a money grab.

In reply to cevans_40

cevans_40 said:

---

People like OP make it painfully aware to me that this country will never be what it used to be.

---

Maybe things have been changing for quite some time and you are now just seeing it? Not sure what you mean, however, the idea of people like Franklin Graham or Ascension House, living out their calling to welcome a stranger in a foreign land is not a new thing.

Things have been changing for sure...

#BidenWorstPresidentEver #BidenBorderCrisis #BidenBorderInvasion #SanctuaryCities #IllegalAliens #CloseTheDamnBorder #BorderCrisis #BorderInvasion

Call them what they are..........#IllegalAliens pic.twitter.com/wF6BT8XQWP

— Pam Jamison (@PamJamiso13) March 16, 2024

This thread started out to be an apology for helping illegal crossers by saying helping is Christian, which it is, up to the point it starts hurting other people.
We need to see more than just a select part of this huge issue; a lot is going on and huge changes are being made.

It’s with great pride I announce that our team successfully conducted another rescue of 13 Americans out of PAP Haiti. Our team has now successfully rescued and evacuated more Americans than Biden and his entire administration.

Americans deserve support from their government.… pic.twitter.com/KZhLDZsdtR

— Cory Mills (@CoryMillsFL) March 18, 2024

Good for this guy but it seems like his cheap shot at Biden is false.

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/18/first-charter-flight-us-citizens-fleeing-haiti-lands-miami

In reply to Macarthur

Macarthur said:

---

Good for this guy but it seems like his cheap shot at Biden is false.

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/18/first-charter-flight-us-citizens-fleeing-haiti-lands-miami

---

He and his team have still brought more Americans back from Haiti than the administration.

And they had made at least three successful trips before the State department finally made their first trip. So no, I don't think it is false.

In reply to chap I would like to see the numbers. I have a hard time believing he can accommodate more people than charter flights from the state department.

Forgive me if I don't buy the Tim Ballard-esq politically motivated line without something backing it up.

It's been at least 4 flights with 10-15 each. State department said they did about 30.

Looks like an invasion to me. Sorry, there's nowhere in the bible that says we have to let people into our country who don't respect our rules/laws.

This is the moment when TX National Guard became overrun by migrants rioting to get across the border here in El Paso today

We were there and saw it all happen. Absolute chaos here. pic.twitter.com/VN6Kf663ie

— Jennie Taer (@JennieSTaer) March 21, 2024