What should be done about illegal immigration?

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Which part of "we forgive those who trespass against us" are you not getting? Clearly, Jesus forgave murderers and trespassers alike.

Jesus may forgive murderers. Most of us tend to prosecute.

1 Reply

@roger,

Jesus forgave the murderer. He did not condone the act of murder in the process however. He was especially harsh in his judgment of those who would cause offense to children or lead them astray. If I was a Christian immigrant, I would think about that before teaching or showing my children that breaking the law to improve one's status or lot in life was a good thing to do.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You know, if it meant survival or well being of my family, I might cross a border or two, myself. Still, I would always remember that the country could stop me at the border if it could, or send me back if they caught up with me.

0 Replies

Quote:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Foxfyre, You are stretching to imply that Jesus made enforcement of the law more important than compassion.

The law said the woman caught in sin should be killed with stones just like the law says people who break immigration laws should have their families and communities broken.

Yet Jesus intervened on the side of Compassion.

You are going to emphasize the "Go now and leave your life of sin bit". Yet, the net result was that this woman did not die (in spite of the fact the law said she must).

You accept Jesus died to give you a similar amnesty-- the law says the punishment for your sin is death. You would think that people who are grateful for the amnesty they have received would be a bit more generous with others.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

I said nothing of the kind. I pointed out that Jesus in no way condoned the breaking of the law even as he extended compassion and forgiveness. You and Obill would have us ignore the sin in order to extend compassion. That is not what Jesus taught.

I am offering illegals the exact same deal. Neither will I 'kill you' or 'punish you' or do anything else to you, but you must go and sin no more. Go home. Come back legally. And all is forgiven.

You guys will have to get up pretty early in the morning to win a battle of Bible 'proof texts' with me.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I am offering illegals the exact same deal. Neither will I 'kill you' or 'punish you' or do anything else to you, but you must go and sin no more. Go home. Come back legally.

Ordering them to "go home" is no punishment, then?

2 Replies

@old europe,

I didn't say order. I said give them an opportunity to do the right thing. Withhold the prescribed punishment and give them opportunity to cease 'sinning'. No different than what Jesus did and, by example, what he was demonstrating to the woman's accusers. Jesus died for all our sins so that we would not have to suffer the prescribed penalty of death for them. His sacrifice did not remove all the real time consequences for our sins, however--sin does have consequences which I believe is why God opposes it. And it did not imply a license to just keep sinning as if nothing had happened.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I see. You wouldn't punish them immediately for being in the United States if they only stopped sinning by being in the United States. But continuing to stay in America would equal continuing to sin, and for that, they would have to be punished.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

What part of "I forgive you. . . . go and sin no more" are you not getting? Forgive them for past offenses yes. Forgive the unrepentent? No. Jesus referred to such as that as a 'brood of vipers'. Forgive them for offenses they intended to keep committing no. Read up on his advice to the rich young ruler.

So yes. We can certainly forgive folks for their past offenses re illegal immigration and give them an opportunity to get right with the law--such opportunity not including just allowing them to continue to break the law. Why are you so opposed to doing that?

I am not at all opposed to giving "them and opportunity to get right with the law". That is, in fact, precisely what I am advocating. Those who owe tax; should pay their back taxes. It is the long standing policy of the IRS to allow delinquent tax payers time to pay, rather than to imprison them... let alone exile them. Neither am I opposed to a moderate fine for crossing the border in the first place. Exile is simply WAY too harsh of penalty for a relatively petty offense, like crossing a border.

You are sick in the head if you think Jesus would have considered moving to better provide for your family an unforgivable offense. You're even sicker if you think he would have considered them doing nothing more than continuing to exist where they built their lives a continued sin. Really Foxy; stop arguing and think like Jesus for a second. No way He would EVER advocate the breaking of a family because someone crossed a line in the sand umteen years ago. That is just too absurd.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

You cannot exile somebody who is not a citizen to begin with. The illegals among us are actually living in exile.

Quote:

ex·ile
n.
1.
a. Enforced removal from one's native country.
b. Self-imposed absence from one's country.
2. The condition or a period of living away from one's native country.
3. One who lives away from one's native country, whether because of expulsion or voluntary absence.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exile

Your solution is to allow people to buy their residency or citizenship. That should be a reprehensible concept to anybody who values what America used to stand for.

I'm not going to repeat my solution that would demonstrate the best kind of compassion while satisfying the concerns of everybody except the numbnuts on this issue. You've ignored it the last several times I've posted it and it only earned me the worst kinds of hateful slurs from you. Even now you are ignoring anything inconvenient to your argument.

I said before and I say now, that your solution includes the most insidious kind of insult to the very good people you care about; and, because of the ill will and perceptions you wish on them, offers the most convoluted concept of compassion. I doubt you are capable of seeing that any more. At one time you could have though.

You do people no kindness when you encourage them to be less than they could be.

1 Reply

great. as if the subject wasn't complicated enough, now jesus has to get dragged into it.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

That's what I thought too. It wasn't my idea, believe me, but I wasn't going to let Him be misquoted and misrepresented either for purposes which He would never condone.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Your solution is to allow people to buy their residency or citizenship. That should be a reprehensible concept to anybody who values what America used to stand for.

From the website of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services:

Quote:

Immigration through Investment

Overview

Under section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(5), 10,000 immigrant visas per year are available to qualified individuals seeking permanent resident status on the basis of their engagement in a new commercial enterprise.

[...]

Eligibility

Permanent resident status based on EB-5 eligibility is available to investors, either alone or coming with their spouse and unmarried children. Eligible aliens are those who have invested " or are actively in the process of investing " the required amount of capital into a new commercial enterprise that they have established.

[...]

Who have invested " or who are actively in the process of investing " in a new commercial enterprise:

* at least $1,000,000, or
* at least $500,000 where the investment is being made in a "targeted employment area," which is an area that has experience unemployment of at least 150 per cent of the national average rate or a rural area as designated by OMB

1 Reply

@old europe,

And you don't see the difference between coming here to provide 10 or more jobs to Americans plus increasing the general welfare and paying a fine and back taxes OE? But even those who come here legally on the investment visas have to submit to the immigration laws and policy. I don't have any problem with that.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Ordering them to "go home" is no punishment, then?

You got it. You get caught stealing a nice watch. They tell you to put it back and leave the store. You're back where you started, and you haven't been punished.

2 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

old europe wrote:

Ordering them to "go home" is no punishment, then?

You got it. You get caught stealing a nice watch. They tell you to put it back and leave the store. You're back where you started, and you haven't been punished.

I suppose we can also look at it that you keep the watch you stole but you pay me on the side and you can keep shopping is a punishment?

0 Replies

This is a silly discussion. We have a secular government, which is charged with enforcing the law.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Not really that silly. The argument is whether the government should enforce the law. The pro-amnesty people are now wanting Jesus to help them justify not enforcing the law. The only silly thing is the misinterpretation of Scripture they're having to use in order to do that. Smile

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And you don't see the difference between coming here to provide 10 or more jobs to Americans plus increasing the general welfare and paying a fine and back taxes OE?

Of course there's a difference. It's mostly in the amount of money we're talking about.

However, it still constitutes "allowing people to buy their residency" - and if that's a "reprehensible concept to anybody who values what America used to stand for", then the amount of money spent and the specifications of what the money has to be spent on shouldn't make a difference.

1 Reply

@old europe,

No problem. It's legal, by definition. That makes it a different topic.

1 Reply

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know