MennoNet.com

Josh wrote:Most conservative Anabaptists that I know who share their political opinions would be of the opinion that a government can set up immigration restrictions.

Most human beings across the political spectrum share that opinion. The real debate is about what restrictions are needed - and to a large extent, about what restrictions were already in place. So saying you disagree with those who think a government can set up immigration restrictions is a lot like saying you disagree with those who think refugees should be subjected to torture. Very few people believe either of these things. If you want to have a policy discussion, it's best to discuss what specific people are actually saying, including mainstream views across the spectrum.

But if conservative Anabaptism gets conflated with political opinions, I fear for conservative Anabaptism.

Josh wrote:Generally speaking, CAs are not in agreement with left-wing politicians who want wide open borders.

Who do you have in mind? That's clearly not what Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama believe, or anybody I know anywhere on the political spectrum who has served in the Department of State. You can see lively debates on how best to control the borders at foreignpolicy.com or on lawfare.com, including people across the spectrum, and "wide-open borders" is an option practically nobody ever discusses. Even very left-wing people like Bernie Sanders say they want to secure the border.

It's hard to have a sane discussion by shouting negative stereotypes at the other side. Not sure we need to discuss this on MN, but if we do, I'd suggest we pull out some informative articles on the various policies that have been seriously proposed.

I'm not posting this here because I particularly want to debate this, I am posting this here so we can discuss conservative Anabaptists vs. white separatists in the other thread, and discuss bunny trails elsewhere if we need to discuss them at all.

As a conservative Anabaptist, I am so happy that it is not up to me to decide how far to open the borders to immigrants from other countries. The heart would say that we need to allow every one in that is being persecuted for righteousness sake in their home country. The heart would also want to welcome every one that is finding insufficient food in their home land.

Looking at it from a political or economic viewpoint will be very different. How many non-christian people can we absorb without losing the privileges we currently enjoy? How many people can we put to work without jeopardizing jobs for ourselves and our children? Canada prides itself on being a multi-cultural country. How many Chinese people can the country absorb until we are more Chinese than Canadian?

These are just a few questions that I would ask if I felt led to become involved. However, as a conservative Anabaptist I would rather pray for wisdom for the people charged with making these decisions.

How many Chinese people can the country absorb until we are more Chinese than Canadian?

That'd be a bad thing, in your opinion?

KingdomBuilder wrote:

How many Chinese people can the country absorb until we are more Chinese than Canadian?

That'd be a bad thing, in your opinion?

Is it a bad thing for Canada to be Canadian?

Ethnicity vs Nationality, Chinese Canadians exist.

It’s a fair question if Canada should allow itself to become majority Chinese-Canadian, or if it’s okay for a country to choose to maintain its current ethnic mix.

Given that China and India account for half the world’s population, an open borders policy means prosperous places like Canada or Australia would quickly become majority Asian. It’s a reasonable thing for the exisiting citizens of Canada or Australia to decide if they want that to happen.

Conservative Anabaptists generally avoid trying to enact and set policy to alter the ethnic composition of their host country, but wouldn’t fight it, either. They usually focus on loving their neighbours, whoever they are.

Haystack wrote:Ethnicity vs Nationality, Chinese Canadians exist.

So do European Canadians, who probably moved in starting in the 1500s or so. Should they be allowed to stay?

KingdomBuilder wrote:

How many Chinese people can the country absorb until we are more Chinese than Canadian?

That'd be a bad thing, in your opinion?

Not necessarily bad but it would change things, in particular if they remained Chinese. From what I can see, most Chinese in Canada become Canadian, even while maintaining (for now at least) a work ethic that is better than many Canadians have.

Bootstrap wrote:

Haystack wrote:Ethnicity vs Nationality, Chinese Canadians exist.

So do European Canadians, who probably moved in starting in the 1500s or so. Should they be allowed to stay?

Whoa - we weren't talking about kicking anyone out yet. The Chinese people in Canada are a significant part of our multicultural mix. Ottawa or Montreal or Toronto or Vancouver without Chinatown would be changed, not for the better. And really to reiterate, I entered this thread, not because of strong feelings one way or the other about immigration but because I realize that someone is making hard decisions on who and how many to integrate into our countries.

Bootstrap wrote:

Haystack wrote:Ethnicity vs Nationality, Chinese Canadians exist.

So do European Canadians, who probably moved in starting in the 1500s or so. Should they be allowed to stay?

What's your point? I never said anything about anyone being kicked out. Someone who's legal place of residence is their nationality which is not defined by their ethnicity.

Hats Off, it sounds like Canada is having a similar situation that we have here in California as far as overwhelming number of non-citizens. I agree it's not a easy one to figure out or handle.