Sending migrants on buses, trains, and planes...

[Bootstrap]

More of a utopia than dystopia. The point is, that geo-political states are intuitively clearly not aligned with God's Kingdom. We shouldn't align with their ends either.

The current status of the global empire is that they are very busy promoting the mass movement of peoples all over the place. If you don't want to be aligned with the ends of geo-political states, a good first place to start is by not supporting mass migration for economic reasons.

I don't think war, poverty, and drug gangs are a plot to flood the United States. There is not a single "global empire", there are countries like the United States, Germany, France, England ... and none of these countries thinks mass migration is a goal they want to pursue. What geo-political states are you thinking of?

But all of these countries look back at the way migrants were treated in World War II with horror. And want to do better now. That's a big reason for the current approach to immigration, all of this was set up at a time that America was ashamed of turning ships of Jews back, refusing to grant them refuge from Hitler.

[Josh]

I don't think war, poverty, and drug gangs are a plot to flood the United States. There is not a single "global empire", there are countries like the United States, Germany, France, England ... and none of these countries thinks mass migration is a goal they want to pursue. What geo-political states are you thinking of?

Yet mass migration is exactly what is happening in those states, and there are powerful forces who promote it and want it. (Basically, capital wants it, since it means a lot more cheap labour and helps keep wages low, one of the greatest goals of the capitalist.)

But all of these countries look back at the way migrants were treated in World War II with horror. And want to do better now. That's a big reason for the current approach to immigration, all of this was set up at a time that America was ashamed of turning ships of Jews back, refusing to grant them refuge from Hitler.

It's amazing how some people connect every topic to Hitler.

[HondurasKeiser]

Is Joshua really arguing for a "borderless world" or is that dismissive or exaggerated interpretation of his position.

In one very real sense, any free market person, must also endorse the free movements of peoples. As peoples really are a labor market. You can't argue for free trade and for restricted immigration. This is precisely why NAFTA created the immigration boom in the 90s. A free economy, necessarily entails free movements of people.

Also there is a humanity argument for people being able to exercise their sovereign wills and relocate...just as most of us have at one time or another. One can make a compelling argument that artificial geo-political borders, are merely obstructions to natural God given rights. And usually serve merely as tools to manipulate peoples and economies in the interest of those that control the borders.

The question is, does God really want a bunch of violent competing geo-political nations states striving for dominion? Or does he have another way? If so what is it is and let's advocate for that. Hint - I don't think it includes borders or geo-political states.

I don't think I am being either dismissive or exaggerative of his stated position, though I suppose he can tell us if I am.

[Bootstrap]

I don't think war, poverty, and drug gangs are a plot to flood the United States. There is not a single "global empire", there are countries like the United States, Germany, France, England ... and none of these countries thinks mass migration is a goal they want to pursue. What geo-political states are you thinking of?

Yet mass migration is exactly what is happening in those states, and there are powerful forces who promote it and want it. (Basically, capital wants it, since it means a lot more cheap labour and helps keep wages low, one of the greatest goals of the capitalist.)

So who do you think is causing these wars? Who do you think is causing the drug gangs? Who do you think is causing the poverty? And what do you think nation states should do about these things?

In particular, if people like these immigrants are being victimized, how should they be helped?

But all of these countries look back at the way migrants were treated in World War II with horror. And want to do better now. That's a big reason for the current approach to immigration, all of this was set up at a time that America was ashamed of turning ships of Jews back, refusing to grant them refuge from Hitler.

It's amazing how some people connect every topic to Hitler.

This is, in fact, the history of these policies as they evolved after World War II. And in the 1950s, a LOT of our policy was shaped by the fear of what we had seen under Hitler and Stalin. If there's anything misleading about what I said, please tell me specifically what it was.

If not, there's nothing wrong with learning from history. And with all the 1950s nostalgia, remembering what Americans knew back then might be rather helpful.

[Josh]

So who do you think is causing these wars? Who do you think is causing the drug gangs? Who do you think is causing the poverty? And what do you think nation states should do about these things?

Who is causing these things? People who decide they want to be gangsters, use and sell drugs, and murder people.

In particular, if people like these immigrants are being victimized, how should they be helped?

It doesn't help victims to allow violent gangsters, drug dealers, and murderers into the country through an open border. Nor does it help to allow them to lodge false asylum claims. Nor does it help when they are repeatedly arrested, even deported, and keep re-entering the country.

How to help? Politicians like Bukele seem to be helping. Violence has dropped far lower. Of course, criminal gangsters are fleeing the country for fear of punishment, which does put pressure on bordering countries. Care should be taken to make sure these people don't enter the U.S. (or other countries).

This is, in fact, the history of these policies as they evolved after World War II. And in the 1950s, a LOT of our policy was shaped by the fear of what we had seen under Hitler and Stalin. If there's anything misleading about what I said, please tell me specifically what it was.

If not, there's nothing wrong with learning from history. And with all the 1950s nostalgia, remembering what Americans knew back then might be rather helpful.

I am not someone who thinks we need a return to the 1950s.

There is no need to bring up Hitler or Stalin in every conversation. The fact migration policy was developed in the 1950s in reaction to WWII would make a sound case for changing it now. The present day world is nothing at all like postwar Europe or east Asia.

[Bootstrap]

In particular, if people like these immigrants are being victimized, how should they be helped?

It doesn't help victims to allow violent gangsters, drug dealers, and murderers into the country through an open border.

But the vast majority of people entering the border are nothing like that at all. And it really harms victims to falsely portray them that way, as some politicians are doing. They are trying to teach us how to feel, teaching us to close our hearts, teaching us to other these people. And they are doing so very successfully.

So as compassionate Christians, how should we speak about them? How should we seek to help? What is our place in all of this?

[Bootstrap]

There is no need to bring up Hitler or Stalin in every conversation. The fact migration policy was developed in the 1950s in reaction to WWII would make a sound case for changing it now. The present day world is nothing at all like postwar Europe or east Asia.

There is good reason to bring up Hitler and Stalin in this kind of conversation, though. I do not want to see us close our hearts and avert our eyes to kids in cages, families being forcibly separated in ways that makes it hard for them to reunite, or the horrible conditions we see in the camps where immigrants are waiting in Mexico. Under Hitler, Christians mostly turned their eyes. Even Mennonites.

As Christians, compassion is a fundamental value. Caring for the last, the least, and the lost is at the heart of being Christlike. And if we sacrifice all of that because of the current political climate, we are selling our birthright for a mess of pottage.

[Josh]

But the vast majority of people entering the border are nothing like that at all. And it really harms victims to falsely portray them that way, as some politicians are doing. They are trying to teach us how to feel, teaching us to close our hearts, teaching us to other these people. And they are doing so very successfully.

So as compassionate Christians, how should we speak about them? How should we seek to help? What is our place in all of this?

MS-13 was started in Los Angeles by Salvadoran émigrés. Of course, not all of them (or even most of) the migrants from El Salvador were MS-13 charter members - but clearly, enough were to create one of the most violent criminal gangs in the world, which eventually sent a few gangsters to migrate back to El Salvador and set up shop there as well.

What is our place in all this? If we really believe in promoting peace and nonviolence, perhaps a good place to start is to not agitate for policy positions that result in a sharp increase in violence.

There is good reason to bring up Hitler and Stalin in this kind of conversation, though.

No, there isn't. Any moral principle can be discussed without bringing up Hitler and Stalin.

I do not want to see us close our hearts and avert our eyes to kids in cages, families being forcibly separated in ways that makes it hard for them to reunite, or the horrible conditions we see in the camps where immigrants are waiting in Mexico. Under Hitler, Christians mostly turned their eyes. Even Mennonites.

When you say things like "kids in cages" and "families forcibly separated", you are simply repeating partisan talking points. We both know that kids weren't put in cages. They did have to figure out what to do with unaccompanied minors. Simply releasing them into the general American public is not a good idea, particularly with overwhelming evidence of trafficking.

Likewise, many "families forcibly separated" were no such thing at all - they were simply minors being accompanied with their traffickers. I don't think separating children from a human trafficker is a bad thing.

If the conditions of camps in Mexico are horrible, then a good solution is for the word to be spread to encourage migrants to stop going there. As I documented elsewhere, many migrants are going under the lure of false promises they saw on social media.

As Christians, compassion is a fundamental value. Caring for the last, the least, and the lost is at the heart of being Christlike. And if we sacrifice all of that because of the current political climate, we are selling our birthright for a mess of pottage.

As I documented elsewhere, I don't think a factory owner who takes out a loan for $8,000 so he can get plane tickets to Morocco and Turkey so that he can illegally enter the U.S. to seek economic opportunity is the "least of these". Part of being Christlike is not finding ways to accomodate everyone who wants to garner even more wealth - Christ's message was, in fact, the opposite.

[joshuabgood]

Is Joshua really arguing for a "borderless world" or is that dismissive or exaggerated interpretation of his position.

In one very real sense, any free market person, must also endorse the free movements of peoples. As peoples really are a labor market. You can't argue for free trade and for restricted immigration. This is precisely why NAFTA created the immigration boom in the 90s. A free economy, necessarily entails free movements of people.

Also there is a humanity argument for people being able to exercise their sovereign wills and relocate...just as most of us have at one time or another. One can make a compelling argument that artificial geo-political borders, are merely obstructions to natural God given rights. And usually serve merely as tools to manipulate peoples and economies in the interest of those that control the borders.

The question is, does God really want a bunch of violent competing geo-political nations states striving for dominion? Or does he have another way? If so what is it is and let's advocate for that. Hint - I don't think it includes borders or geo-political states.

I don't think I am being either dismissive or exaggerative of his stated position, though I suppose he can tell us if I am.

See my comment on the other page...in principle, in the coming/conquering Kingdom of God, I don't think borders are in God's will.

As a matter of utilitarian values - see my other comment.

[HondurasKeiser]

Is Joshua really arguing for a "borderless world" or is that dismissive or exaggerated interpretation of his position.

In one very real sense, any free market person, must also endorse the free movements of peoples. As peoples really are a labor market. You can't argue for free trade and for restricted immigration. This is precisely why NAFTA created the immigration boom in the 90s. A free economy, necessarily entails free movements of people.

Also there is a humanity argument for people being able to exercise their sovereign wills and relocate...just as most of us have at one time or another. One can make a compelling argument that artificial geo-political borders, are merely obstructions to natural God given rights. And usually serve merely as tools to manipulate peoples and economies in the interest of those that control the borders.

The question is, does God really want a bunch of violent competing geo-political nations states striving for dominion? Or does he have another way? If so what is it is and let's advocate for that. Hint - I don't think it includes borders or geo-political states.

I don't think I am being either dismissive or exaggerative of his stated position, though I suppose he can tell us if I am.

See my comment on the other page...in principle, in the coming/conquering Kingdom of God, I don't think borders are in God's will.

As a matter of utilitarian values - see my other comment.

Well thank you for clarifying. I think I would agree then with your first point and dissent from your utilitarian assumptions.