Refugees and Immigration: What does good look like?

[Jazman]

This, "A Christian Vision for Ordered Welcome is pretty good and answers the question in an even / fair way. (I have some quibbles, but the tone is inviting/thoughtful and therefore worth my consideration).
I see many good quotes from this piece, but I'll share this (the bolded line jumps out at me... yes process!)

"None of these grants permission to dehumanize the sojourner. Scripture is unyielding here.

Israel was not condemned for having borders. God condemned the crushing of the vulnerable, for exercising power without restraint, for forgetting the image of God in the stranger. Enforcement in Scripture is never an excuse for humiliation or harm. Justice is measured not only by outcomes but by process. Dignity matters.

This is where many evangelicals, myself at times, have forfeited moral credibility. We have defended family separation. We have minimized conditions in detention centers. We have spoken about order as though it absolves us from mercy. Then, when our own churches are disrupted, we suddenly discover the language of sanctity and protection.

It rings hollow."

[JohnH]

I think we can look at this one post at a time. Some posts really do seem to promote very scary, very false stereotypes about refugees and immigrants.

Then address those posts specifically.

Most Germans or Canadians I know would find those posts objectionable. Most Germans or Canadians I know support their country's immigration policies.

Right. Some people (such as myself) simply think America would be better served with a much more restrictive immigration system similar to those countries.

It is tiresome to be called hateful, full of prejudice, not wanting to follow the Bible, etc. for simply holding that opinion.

[Bootstrap]

I think we can look at this one post at a time. Some posts really do seem to promote very scary, very false stereotypes about refugees and immigrants.

Then address those posts specifically.

When I see posts like that, I often do address them specifically. I’m not making a claim about your motives or character. I’m pointing to a specific statement and explaining why I think it’s false or misleading.

Right. Some people (such as myself) simply think America would be better served with a much more restrictive immigration system similar to those countries.

In the OP for this thread, I was trying to describe something similar to Germany and Canada. Are there particular points where you think my approach is significantly different from theirs?

It is tiresome to be called hateful, full of prejudice, not wanting to follow the Bible, etc. for simply holding that opinion.

I don't. I do talk about what hate looks like, what it means to spread ugly stereotypes, what the Bible teaches, etc. I do not give you or anyone else report cards. I do point out specific posts that seem to do those things.

I don’t think promoting what is lawful, humane, and accountable is something we should give up just because it’s uncomfortable.

[ohio jones]

I do talk about what hate looks like

Should I change the thread title?

[Bootstrap]

I do talk about what hate looks like

Should I change the thread title?

Might be useful to have a separate thread on the subject, focused on what the Bible teaches.

Originally, this thread was just a place for me to answer John's question - a question I have answered many times in various threads, in more or less the same way as I did in the OP. I thought that it was less likely to get lost in its own thread. The question came from the Civil War thread, my answer really was about what I think governments should do, and so was my answer.

[Ernie]

I think there is a big difference between wanting an orderly and limited way of bringing immigrants into the country while being compassionate towards the stranger and foreigner living among us vs. being a messenger for defending how the government goes about stereotyping, arresting, deporting, and hindering legitimate asylum seekers from due and reasonable process.

Some people can stay focused on the first without getting sucked into the second, but it seems like most people who embrace particular politicians and political movements can't help but get sucked in to the latter.

[JohnH]

I think there is a big difference between wanting an orderly and limited way of bringing immigrants into the country while being compassionate towards the stranger and foreigner living among us vs. being a messenger for defending how the government goes about stereotyping, arresting, deporting, and hindering legitimate asylum seekers from due and reasonable process.

Some people can stay focused on the first without getting sucked into the second, but it seems like most people who embrace particular politicians and political movements can't help but get sucked in to the latter.

Let's consider this:

Conversely, I think there is a big difference between wanting an orderly and humane way of allowing some level of immigration that benefits a country, including a certain amount of concern for legitimate refugees, vs. being a messenger for defending how the government goes about allowing millions to enter a country in a disorderly fashion and then finding ways to make it possible for them to stay for long periods of time and apply for myriads of government-paid benefits to the tune of billions of dollars, benefiting certain politicians and business interests but not benefiting the public as a whole and causing conflict over scarce jobs, scarce housing resources, and scarce public benefits such as emergency rooms.

Some people can stay focused on the first without getting sucked into the second, but it seems like most people who embrace particular politicians and political movements can't help but get sucked in to the latter.

See how that works?

[Ernie]

I think there is a big difference between wanting an orderly and limited way of bringing immigrants into the country while being compassionate towards the stranger and foreigner living among us vs. being a messenger for defending how the government goes about stereotyping, arresting, deporting, and hindering legitimate asylum seekers from due and reasonable process.

Some people can stay focused on the first without getting sucked into the second, but it seems like most people who embrace particular politicians and political movements can't help but get sucked in to the latter.

Let's consider this:

Conversely, I think there is a big difference between wanting an orderly and humane way of allowing some level of immigration that benefits a country, including a certain amount of concern for legitimate refugees, vs. being a messenger for defending how the government goes about allowing millions to enter a country in a disorderly fashion and then finding ways to make it possible for them to stay for long periods of time and apply for myriads of government-paid benefits to the tune of billions of dollars, benefiting certain politicians and business interests but not benefiting the public as a whole and causing conflict over scarce jobs, scarce housing resources, and scarce public benefits such as emergency rooms.

Some people can stay focused on the first without getting sucked into the second, but it seems like most people who embrace particular politicians and political movements can't help but get sucked in to the latter.

See how that works?

Sure. Neither one is good.

[JohnL]

What does "good" look like? We have the ultimate example given to us by God: Jesus. What does Jesus expect of us? Read the New Testament.
No need for word wrangling.
No pompous speeches.
No artificial intelligence.
Just the New Testament and God's authentic intelligence.

[Robert]

I don’t think it’s wrong to deport people who entered without inspection or overstayed visas. Every country has immigration laws, and they need to be enforced in some way. How we enforce those laws is important. Currently, I see a lack of due process, underfunded courts, and aggressive enforcement that treats everyone as a threat. What I see looks like performative cruelty, performative power, done for show. Deportation shouldn’t be chaotic, punitive, or violent. It should be lawful, careful, and accountable.

To me, a good system looks like this:

• We accept a reasonable share of the world's refugees and screen them carefully
• The rules are clear and applied consistently
• Immigration courts are fully funded so people get timely, fair hearings
• Legal status isn’t taken away arbitrarily or for political reasons
• Removals, when they happen, are humane, keep families together when possible, and help people plan where they’ll go

What do the rest of you think?

If one only looks at one state, they can see many of these downfalls. If they look at Texas, you do not see it. I think it is because the system is working as planned here and not other places that are resisting it. It then falls into a political theater and drama is spurred up from both sides.

Refugees and general immigration are two different things and unfair when they are lumped together. Challenge is many unfairly used refugee status and are really just immigrants. Clearing these lines will not make people happy.

What looks good? Your list looks good, but politics clouds it from both sides. Much of that is being done.

Why is it up to us to figure it out? It is a government action thus is heaped in politics. How can we discuss it without getting into politics? Could you lay out a plan to do that? That would be helpful because I can't see it.