Illegal alien arrivals now greater than American births?

[Szdfan]

I have mostly avoided this thread because I hoped it would fade away. I find it embarrassing that mennonites should be so vulnerable to these ideas. We should have institutional memory of being the uprooted and unwanted and should rightly identify with those in similar situations. We should have some theological immunity to the social/spiritual contagion of owning and controlling territory, we should have a keener eye for a heavenly kingdom, not earthly.

I am not really embarrassed because I don't hold Mennonites in higher regard than anyone else, but I am taken back by the degree to which these xenophobic, nationalist ideas infiltrate our ranks.

Even the title of this thread speaks of an anti- historical, self inflicted blindness, all births here are American and for good reason. We gained this ethical insight at terrible cost, to shed it so easily feels disrespectful of those who suffered.

You cannot compare the two scenarios at all.

Why don’t you think you can compare the two scenarios?

[joshuabgood]

I have mostly avoided this thread because I hoped it would fade away. I find it embarrassing that mennonites should be so vulnerable to these ideas. We should have institutional memory of being the uprooted and unwanted and should rightly identify with those in similar situations. We should have some theological immunity to the social/spiritual contagion of owning and controlling territory, we should have a keener eye for a heavenly kingdom, not earthly.

I am not really embarrassed because I don't hold Mennonites in higher regard than anyone else, but I am taken back by the degree to which these xenophobic, nationalist ideas infiltrate our ranks.

Even the title of this thread speaks of an anti- historical, self inflicted blindness, all births here are American and for good reason. We gained this ethical insight at terrible cost, to shed it so easily feels disrespectful of those who suffered.

You cannot compare the two scenarios at all.

Just so you know, if you were ever in the same situation as the poor Iranian wife, I would advocate for you as well. Or if any of the other posters were trying to make a better life for their family and were facing alligator alcatraz, and deportation, I would advocate for them as well.

The golden rule is the standard.

[Moses]

The fact that immigrants are mostly brown and black and therefore this "scary" boom of babies are brown or black babies is merely a fact. I am not sure there is anything else to do with that. And the fact that a "neighborhood going bad" historically in the USA society, has meant it becoming less white and "property values falling" as a result, of things like the Great Migration, etc, is also a historical fact. Wouldn't you agree? Many scholars feel there is a racial component. And linking Kensington to it...well, seems pretty sus.

Well again, because Barnhart thought "Demographic Shift" was a morally neutral term with which to describe mass immigration, that suddenly opened the discussion to something much wider and more encompassing than simply immigration. Which is why neighborhoods changing, Kensington as an example, were brought up. No one linked black and brown people to failing and dangerous neighborhoods until you did in what seemed to be an attempt to discredit the poster that mentioned it.

In mind we were always discussing immigration...which is far and away people of color. Which made the Kensington reference odd as well as the conflating of substance abuse and crime with immigration though that is a commonly repeated myth by folks right at the top of government. Immigration, or more simply, migration, is in fact demographic shift so I have no issue with that term.

Josh, if you wanted to limit the discussion to immigration and people of color, you should have stuck with language that actually means immigration and people of color. Instead, you made a very broad claim that people shouldn't be afraid of population shift, a very sweeping statement with which I disagree, and I explained why I disagree with it.

Here's something I wish you would think very seriously about.
If you look back over my posts, I wasn't dragging race into my arguments. I was talking about demographic changes and culture changes having to do with crime and quality of life issues and I would hope that any somewhat educated reader could quickly see that the majority of the examples I chose to use were of the type that apply to whites just as well as to others. You, along with others, insisted on dragging race into my comments and certainly implied that I was talking about being scared of black and brown people, even though my posts indicated nothing of the kind. How is that kind of response, by an educated man like you, any better than that of my elderly neighbor who is afraid of all Hispanic immigrants because the first Hispanics who moved into her neighborhood 50 years ago wrestled down the local policeman and shot him in the leg with his own sidearm when he came to talk to them about parking violations on the neighborhood street?

[joshuabgood]

Well again, because Barnhart thought "Demographic Shift" was a morally neutral term with which to describe mass immigration, that suddenly opened the discussion to something much wider and more encompassing than simply immigration. Which is why neighborhoods changing, Kensington as an example, were brought up. No one linked black and brown people to failing and dangerous neighborhoods until you did in what seemed to be an attempt to discredit the poster that mentioned it.

In mind we were always discussing immigration...which is far and away people of color. Which made the Kensington reference odd as well as the conflating of substance abuse and crime with immigration though that is a commonly repeated myth by folks right at the top of government. Immigration, or more simply, migration, is in fact demographic shift so I have no issue with that term.

Josh, if you wanted to limit the discussion to immigration and people of color, you should have stuck with language that actually means immigration and people of color. Instead, you made a very broad claim that people shouldn't be afraid of population shift, a very sweeping statement with which I disagree, and I explained why I disagree with it.

Here's something I wish you would think very seriously about.
If you look back over my posts, I wasn't dragging race into my arguments. I was talking about demographic changes and culture changes having to do with crime and quality of life issues and I would hope that any somewhat educated reader could quickly see that the majority of the examples I chose to use were of the type that apply to whites just as well as to others. You, along with others, insisted on dragging race into my comments and certainly implied that I was talking about being scared of black and brown people, even though my posts indicated nothing of the kind. How is that kind of response, by an educated man like you, any better than that of my elderly neighbor who is afraid of all Hispanic immigrants because the first Hispanics who moved into her neighborhood 50 years ago wrestled down the local policeman and shot him in the leg with his own sidearm when he came to talk to them about parking violations on the neighborhood street?

Because of my views on the nation state I really don't make a distinction. I have expounded elsewhere regarding my belief that the Kingdom of God is a global one. And I lean postmillenial so I think it will get there and I advocate for that. I see no philosophical difference between me moving from VA to IN to NY to PA and somebody moving from Mexico to Texas. I feel fundamentally that people should have the options of moving just like I did and like my ancestors did. And probably yours. Further, I see people, including immigrants, as the most valuable resource created in the image of God. They are the life blood and energy of many communities. Beyond this I have benfited from being in community with them. Lastly the free movement of labor is part of a free economy.

Therefore I ultimately see no essential difference between the Great Migration and the Hispanic migration after Nafta in the 90s.

It isn't about dragging race in, the fact is, the immigrants are mostly people of color. And many people, me included, feel that is a significant factor with regard to how American society views immigration and receives these people. That is not a fringe view. The kind of disparaging comments, that are too legion to cite, that are said about Haitian immigrants, Hispanic immigrants, etc...give evidence. The USA historical record with regard to immigrants of color also give testimony. Such was also historically true in the Great Migration.

And I still standby that we need not fear immigrant babies or demographic shifts, re thread title. Fear mongering around immigrants is routine these days, much like the red scare was at one point.

I am more afraid of the culture being created by masked agents pulling people off the streets and sending them to alligator alcatraz or a central Amercan prison than I am demographic shift. But that is my view...

[Moses]

In mind we were always discussing immigration...which is far and away people of color. Which made the Kensington reference odd as well as the conflating of substance abuse and crime with immigration though that is a commonly repeated myth by folks right at the top of government. Immigration, or more simply, migration, is in fact demographic shift so I have no issue with that term.

Josh, if you wanted to limit the discussion to immigration and people of color, you should have stuck with language that actually means immigration and people of color. Instead, you made a very broad claim that people shouldn't be afraid of population shift, a very sweeping statement with which I disagree, and I explained why I disagree with it.

Here's something I wish you would think very seriously about.
If you look back over my posts, I wasn't dragging race into my arguments. I was talking about demographic changes and culture changes having to do with crime and quality of life issues and I would hope that any somewhat educated reader could quickly see that the majority of the examples I chose to use were of the type that apply to whites just as well as to others. You, along with others, insisted on dragging race into my comments and certainly implied that I was talking about being scared of black and brown people, even though my posts indicated nothing of the kind. How is that kind of response, by an educated man like you, any better than that of my elderly neighbor who is afraid of all Hispanic immigrants because the first Hispanics who moved into her neighborhood 50 years ago wrestled down the local policeman and shot him in the leg with his own sidearm when he came to talk to them about parking violations on the neighborhood street?

Because of my views on the nation state I really don't make a distinction. I have expounded elsewhere regarding my belief that the Kingdom of God is a global one. And I lean postmillenial so I think it will get there and I advocate for that. I see no philosophical difference between me moving from VA to IN to NY to PA and somebody moving from Mexico to Texas. I feel fundamentally that people should have the options of moving just like I did and like my ancestors did. And probably yours. Further, I see people, including immigrants, as the most valuable resource created in the image of God. They are the life blood and energy of many communities. Beyond this I have benfited from being in community with them. Lastly the free movement of labor is part of a free economy.

Therefore I ultimately see no essential difference between the Great Migration and the Hispanic migration after Nafta in the 90s.

It isn't about dragging race in, the fact is, the immigrants are mostly people of color. And many people, me included, feel that is a significant factor with regard to how American society views immigration and receives these people. That is not a fringe view. The kind of disparaging comments, that are too legion to cite, that are said about Haitian immigrants, Hispanic immigrants, etc...give evidence. The USA historical record with regard to immigrants if color also give testimony. Such was also historically true in the Great Migration.

And I still standby that we need not fear immigrant babies or demographic shifts, re thread title. Fear mongering around immigrants is routine these days, much like the red scare was at one point.

I am more afraid of the culture being created by masked agents pulling people off the streets and sending them to alligator alcatraz or a central Amercan prison than I am demographic shift. But that is my view...

Sigh....
I don't know why I even imagined that you might possibly read and try to understand what I was trying to say.

[joshuabgood]

Josh, if you wanted to limit the discussion to immigration and people of color, you should have stuck with language that actually means immigration and people of color. Instead, you made a very broad claim that people shouldn't be afraid of population shift, a very sweeping statement with which I disagree, and I explained why I disagree with it.

Here's something I wish you would think very seriously about.
If you look back over my posts, I wasn't dragging race into my arguments. I was talking about demographic changes and culture changes having to do with crime and quality of life issues and I would hope that any somewhat educated reader could quickly see that the majority of the examples I chose to use were of the type that apply to whites just as well as to others. You, along with others, insisted on dragging race into my comments and certainly implied that I was talking about being scared of black and brown people, even though my posts indicated nothing of the kind. How is that kind of response, by an educated man like you, any better than that of my elderly neighbor who is afraid of all Hispanic immigrants because the first Hispanics who moved into her neighborhood 50 years ago wrestled down the local policeman and shot him in the leg with his own sidearm when he came to talk to them about parking violations on the neighborhood street?

Because of my views on the nation state I really don't make a distinction. I have expounded elsewhere regarding my belief that the Kingdom of God is a global one. And I lean postmillenial so I think it will get there and I advocate for that. I see no philosophical difference between me moving from VA to IN to NY to PA and somebody moving from Mexico to Texas. I feel fundamentally that people should have the options of moving just like I did and like my ancestors did. And probably yours. Further, I see people, including immigrants, as the most valuable resource created in the image of God. They are the life blood and energy of many communities. Beyond this I have benfited from being in community with them. Lastly the free movement of labor is part of a free economy.

Therefore I ultimately see no essential difference between the Great Migration and the Hispanic migration after Nafta in the 90s.

It isn't about dragging race in, the fact is, the immigrants are mostly people of color. And many people, me included, feel that is a significant factor with regard to how American society views immigration and receives these people. That is not a fringe view. The kind of disparaging comments, that are too legion to cite, that are said about Haitian immigrants, Hispanic immigrants, etc...give evidence. The USA historical record with regard to immigrants if color also give testimony. Such was also historically true in the Great Migration.

And I still standby that we need not fear immigrant babies or demographic shifts, re thread title. Fear mongering around immigrants is routine these days, much like the red scare was at one point.

I am more afraid of the culture being created by masked agents pulling people off the streets and sending them to alligator alcatraz or a central Amercan prison than I am demographic shift. But that is my view...

Sigh....
I don't know why I even imagined that you might possibly read and try to understand what I was trying to say.

Ill try again...but I am trying.

[Szdfan]

1. Does God still command the destruction of entire populations? Are their cases where ethnic cleansing or expulsion are morally justified for Christians to participate in?

Jesus came and brought salvation to the entire world, not just the ethnic Israelites and a handful of converts; now, we are all Israelites. Yet Jesus also taught us to that we no longer war with flesh and blood, but rather do spiritual battle with principalities and powers set up in high places.

Instead of slaying idol worshippers… we show them what Jesus taught us and invite them to join us. The old pagan religions of Europe are extinct, but not because the Roman Christians exterminated them. The Roman religion is extinct, but not because Christians from Palestine waged war on Rome.

2. You argue that God's commands to care for the stranger didn't apply to Canaan. Does it apply to anyone today? Are there groups you believe it doesn't apply to?

I don’t believe the Old Testament law or commands are binding on Christians today. We are set free from the old law.

We do have Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan to teach us, which I apply as being kind to my neighbor (who is anyone who runs across my path) regardless of my opinion or feelings about them. I don’t think the Bible teaches us to uniquely lobby the government for certain immigration policies, though. I see Jesus teaching us to help bind up the wounds of those who are injured or ill; I don’t see Jesus teaching us to acquire low-cost workers and break immigration laws or else lobby to have immigration laws that make it easier to hire low-cost workers from migrant groups instead of hiring our neighbor for a fair wage.

3. How do see you God's commands to destroy the Canaanites fit in with your own understanding of pacifism? Do you see pacifism as universal or does it only apply to certain groups and people?

God is fair and just.

4. How do you believe this framework you're arguing reflects the Gospel of Jesus Christ? What is the Good News for immigrants and migrants who may need to leave their home because of persecution or economic hardship?

Thanks again for answering my questions. The conversation has shifted, but I wanted to circle back on what we had previously discussed. I've put together a summary of what I understand your argument is. Please clarify or correct anything that I might be misunderstanding.

1. You describe that the Gospel primarily applies to personal salvation and does not have any direct implications for social justice, mercy or inclusion, including how countries respond to migrants, refugees and displaced people.

2. Scripture's commands to love our neighbors is about personal kindness rather than a call to challenge or engage with systems or structures that harm or exclude others. This understanding means that Christians do not have a voice in who our society welcomes, who it excludes and who it protects.

3. You describe demographic change as "replacement" and "invasion," but deliberately refuse to engage how this language parallels historical ethno-nationalist concerns over cultural and population shifts. Even though some of your arguments contain the same language, grievances, villains (the elite) and scapegoats (immigrants) as the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, your argument is completely original to you and doesn't reflect any other influences.

4. Your refusal to acknowledge, engage and reflect on the origins of "replacement" language and nativist movements is a kind of intellectual and moral firewall.

5. You apply pacifism to personal conduct (nonviolence between individuals) but does not appear to include structural or systemic violence, that might be enforced by immigration policy, borders, or deportation. These are issues related to governance that Christian ethics have nothing to do with.

Do I understand your position correctly? What might you change or clarify?

[JohnH]

You don’t understand my position correctly, and I don’t think you are engaging with me in good faith.

[Szdfan]

You don’t understand my position correctly, and I don’t think you are engaging with me in good faith.

Ok. So what am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting in the summary I provided above?

[barnhart]

Anti- immigration sentiment and the laws around it have always been based around racial anxiety. Just read the Johnson Reed act, they were honest enough to put it in the text of the bill. This was the law of the land, with small modifications until the civil rights era, a scant 10 years before I was born.

The layers go back to the colonial era with each group despising the group that followed them, including the English distaste of German arrivals in the 1700's who were "not truly white" and "don't acquire our customs," which was true in some sense as some of my wife's family who came in that era still speak German as a first language, drive horse and buggy and still wear clothing styles from the old country.

President Trump with his concerns about immigration from "*expletive* countries" and his desire for more immigrants from Norway and his characterization of immigrants as rapists and bad people, fits well within the American tradition as do those who foment fear of invasion and replacement.

As a mennonite speaking to other Mennonites, I think we can do better. We can remember our own journey. My ancestors came after the terror of European persecution had cooled considerably but discrimination and intolerance still limited economic conditions, so they could easily be called economic migrants and fit in with the bulk of arrivals today. They also came without invitation, visas or any paperwork and moved onto land whose tenants still lived there and considered it their own. John Ruth in his interview with Anabaptist Perspectives pointed out the early anabaptists in their writing quoted Psalm 24, "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.." as much or more than any other scripture. They used it as justification for refusing banishment and to justify relocation when needed. Some groups have fled multiple countries to relocate.

Along with a history pregnant with stories of migration, we also have robust theological resources to direct us away from the siren call of nationalism. We understand being strangers and pilgrims, we know the kingdoms of this world are, to varing degrees, under the influence of Satan and the powers of darkness. We claim our heavenly citizenship and the kingdom of Jesus as current and embodied realities, not ethereal, spiritual or intended for the escaton.

We can do better.