Illegal alien arrivals now greater than American births?

[JohnH]

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?

I’m not willing to discuss it with you until I feel you’re not engaging in bad faith. If you want to engage further, you can PM me.

[joshuabgood]

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

Ok...a new day with a bit more time. Let me try it this way...as I can feel your frustration with me.

I hear you saying this and you tell me if I am understanding.

You are stating that you feel that my statement regarding not needing to be afraid of demographic shifts is naive of sorts. As a demographic shift may involve people moving to your neighborhood that "do bad things." And as a matter of philosophy, those people who do bad things, need not connected directly to race, and may include any type of people. And further it feels frustrating to you that I made a connection between fear of demographic shift and a racial component.

Is that right? Though it may not feel like it, I do want to understand what you are saying.

[joshuabgood]

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.

Exactly...the historical reality and legacy are pretty clear.

[mike]

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.

Our Anabaptist ancestors did migrate various times for varying reasons. But from what I understand, Anabaptist migrations occurred legally and sometimes even at the invitation of the country or lands to which they went. Somehow all of this happened while maintaining a respect and a level of compliance with the laws of the countries in which they lived.

Today, much of the popular furor over immigration is over illegal immigration, where many arrivals are not complying with the law. How should our Anabaptist heritage of respect for the state and its laws, while still seeing the state as often oppositional to the interests of the kingdom of God, inform our view of those who disregard the borders and immigration laws of our country?

[joshuabgood]

How should our Anabaptist heritage of respect for the state and its laws, while still seeing the state as often oppositional to the interests of the kingdom of God, inform our view of those who disregard the borders and laws of our country, crossing borders illegally or overstaying visas or otherwise breaking the law?

This is a good question. I would advocate for prioritizing the interests of the Kingdom of God and the way things will be done when the Kingdom of God is fully realized...over the interests/ends of the modern geopolitical nation state.

I must say I struggle a bit with the "Anabaptist heritage of respect for the state and its laws" in the shadow of its response to the events of 2020.

[JohnH]

How should our Anabaptist heritage of respect for the state and its laws, while still seeing the state as often oppositional to the interests of the kingdom of God, inform our view of those who disregard the borders and laws of our country, crossing borders illegally or overstaying visas or otherwise breaking the law?

This is a good question. I would advocate for prioritizing the interests of the Kingdom of God and the way things will be done when the Kingdom of God is fully realized...over the interests/ends of the modern geopolitical nation state.

I must say I struggle a bit with the "Anabaptist heritage of respect for the state and its laws" in the shadow of its response to the events of 2020.

What response? I saw many businesses closed (some permanently) trying to obey the (now known as pointless) emergency rules put forth at the time - many of which turned out to be illegal. In my state there weren’t actual laws, just guidelines, but most Anabaptists tried to follow them. Some groups kept meeting for church anyway. I think it’s fine to meet for church, regardless of pandemic rules or immigration status. (Generally, though, I’m not sure how necessary illegally crossing a border or overstaying a visa is to attend church.)

In the context of an actually oppressive state with regards to migrants and foreigners (which we don’t have in America, but you can certainly find in other places), I would be comfortable with a certain level of civil disobedience in order to answer the gospel call. Seeking better economic opportunities, though, is not something any of us have an excuse to do as a reason to break the law. The mental health of young people, meeting for church services, practicing baptism and communion and marriages… those are all things we may sometimes have to engage in civil disobedience to practice.

Getting a higher paying job is not.

[Ken]

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.

Our Anabaptist ancestors did migrate various times for varying reasons. But from what I understand, Anabaptist migrations occurred legally and sometimes even at the invitation of the country or lands to which they went. Somehow all of this happened while maintaining a respect and a level of compliance with the laws of the countries in which they lived.

Today, much of the popular furor over immigration is over illegal immigration, where many arrivals are not complying with the law. How should our Anabaptist heritage of respect for the state and its laws, while still seeing the state as often oppositional to the interests of the kingdom of God, inform our view of those who disregard the borders and immigration laws of our country?

Here is some actual data on that. As of the start of the Trump Administration the percentage of immigrants in the US who were here illegally was about 19% of the total. The other 81% of immigrants living in the US had some form of legal status. Either actual visas or permanent resident status of some sort, people with some sort of temporary protected status, or people who had some sort of pending immigration case that had not yet reached conclusion. So all this fuss is about 19% who are truly here illegally.

As Trump began to ramp up his anti-immigrant machinery what they quickly discovered is that it is actually very difficult to ferret out people who are here illegally since the government doesn’t actually know who they are or where they are. Much harder still to find illegal immigrants who are conducting crime, since they are a very small percentage of the total. So instead they began to use administrative processes to rescind the status of people who were here with some sort of legal status. In other words, change people’s status from legal to illegal so they could be detained and deported. And they also began to manipulate the court system on an individual basis to convert people with legal status into illegals and subject to deportation (arresting people attending immigration hearings, for example).

No one knows what percentage of Trump Administration immigration detainees and deportations are of people who were here legally. Because they aren’t keeping records or aren’t making them public. But it is not a small percentage. Perhaps over half.

So the notion that this is simply about people who are here illegally and not complying with the law is false. What the Trump Administration is doing is conducting a massive anti-immigrant policy, not an anti illegal immigration policy. And in doing so they are actually breaking an endless array of laws. Which is the reason courts have been intervening.

Source of the above data: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ana ... s-the-data

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

A few thoughts in response. First a quibble: in my reading of the history of the first Mennonite migration to Pennsylvania, written by one John Ruth, many of our ancestors were in fact invited by land agents working for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. They were invited because of their economic potential in agriculture and because their religious persuasion dove-tailed so well with that of the ruling Quakers. A similar situation does attain in the modern era; with corporations, universities and even government agencies "inviting" the best and the brightest from around the world. Of course many of our Mennonite and Amish forbears showed up on their own, as did millions of other immigrants when "migration" around the globe was a much freer activity. As Mike points out though, Anabaptist immigration to America was always legal. Regardless, I think you're engaging in a bit of fallacious thinking when you suggest that because some Mennonites showed up in America uninvited 300 years ago that means anyone ought to be able to do so today.

Which leads me to my next response. Whenever this subject comes up, I read you and JBG and others here make arguments against the "Anti-immigration" side that amount to an argument for open borders. Your arguments are sweeping salvos about the goodness of immigration, the inherent right to migrate, the fallacy that immigrants cause more crime, that we should welcome the stranger and the alien, that many immigrants seek asylum but that also there's nothing wrong with migrating for economic reasons. Never is a caveat or any limiting principle mentioned that might lead those of us that don't share your perspectives to think that you advocate for anything short of open immigration/open borders. When this is pointed out we're (I'm) accused of strawmanning and ascribing to you beliefs you don't hold. So beyond say, not allowing known and dangerous criminals into the country; what limits do you think the U.S. or any country should place on immigration and based on what criteria?

That leads me to my final point. I don't see anyone here as arguing for something approaching an "Anti-immigration" position as you stated above. No one here is for closed borders or zero immigration. That's been articulated and well many times here in the past. Speaking for myself, I am simply loathe to call immigration, legal or otherwise, an unalloyed good. There are benefits to it certainly and I am in favor of it generally when it's done legally. That doesn't mean though that there aren't costs involved or that a government shouldn't take those externalities into account when trying to determine how many people to let into a country.

As a Mennonite, I think I can both welcome the alien and stranger regardless their legal status at an individual level while recognizing the need for limitations to immigration more broadly.

[Bootstrap]

In Le Grand Remplacement (2011), Camus asserts that a “replacist elite” of domestic and international political and financial elites is deliberately promoting mass immigration to “replace” native Europeans. Renaud Camus is usually seen as a far-right writer and conspiracy theorist - I'm curious why you do not see him that way. He was writing about France, but versions of the theory have also been prominent in U.S. white-nationalist circles and mainstream political rhetoric.

I don't think "replacement" is a neutral term. The word "replacement" implies that we are being "replaced" by those other people. The conspiracy theory says that there's a group of elites who are intentionally plotting to replace us with those other people.

As far as I can tell, I'm still here. My children haven't been replaced either. We have neighbors from other parts of the world. I think the Bible encourages us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Since we're still here, that seems like a good thing to do.

I'd invite you to read this review of him and his work in The New Criterion and then get back me on whether you think it matches what you read about him on Wikipedia.

I have not read about him on Wikipedia. I have read part of Le Grand Remplacement, in French. Is there a particular reason to trust The New Criterion article as a more accurate summary?

These quotes are directly from Renaud Camus. They seem extreme to me, full of fear mongering and conspiracy theories. They encourage us to hate and fear immigrants among us, and to think of immigration as a war that threatens our very existence. As I said above, the word "replacement" implies that we are being "replaced" by those other people. The conspiracy theory says that there's a group of elites who are intentionally plotting to replace us with those other people. My neighbors come from many places, but they are not "replacing" me, and they weren't sent here as part of some plot. The Bible tells me how to relate to my neighbors from various lands. As a Kingdom of God Christian, I intend to do what it says.

HK, do you find some of these quotes objectionable?

Le Grand Remplacement est très simple. C’est le remplacement d’un peuple par un autre. Tout est là.
The Great Replacement is very simple. It is the replacement of one people by another. That is all.

Le changement de peuple est l’événement le plus important de notre histoire depuis quinze siècles.
The change of people is the most important event in our history in fifteen centuries.

La situation est d’une extrême gravité. […] Le Grand Remplacement est un crime contre l’humanité.
The situation is of extreme gravity. […] The Great Replacement is a crime against humanity.

Il ne s’agit pas seulement d’une transformation démographique, mais d’un processus de colonisation, de conquête et d’occupation.
It is not merely a demographic transformation, but a process of colonization, of conquest, and of occupation.

La substitution ethnique est une guerre. Une guerre sans armes apparentes, mais une guerre tout de même.
Ethnic substitution is a war. A war without apparent weapons, but a war nonetheless.

Il ne s’agit pas d’une invasion mais d’une colonisation. Il ne s’agit pas d’une conquête mais d’une submersion.
It is not an invasion but a colonization. It is not a conquest but a submersion.

Le remplacisme global est une idéologie totalitaire qui vise à éliminer les peuples historiques.
Global replacism is a totalitarian ideology that aims to eliminate historical peoples.

[joshuabgood]

When this is pointed out we're (I'm) accused of strawmanning and ascribing to you beliefs you don't hold.

I don't recall doing this. Maybe I have and I forgot...don't spend a lot of time looking, but if you know of a specific place I did. Let me know.

For me, I do look forward to, and adovcate for, the Kingdom of God come on earth as also in heaven. I think it is present and is coming. And when it has completely arrived, the modern nation-state will be no more. And "the earth is the Lord's" will be in full effect with people permitted to move as freely around on God's gift to humanity, as I have done in the several states I have lived. So, do I advocate for open borders, pretty much.

As a matter of utilitarian politick, if I were to hypothesize, I wouldn't argue, I don't think, with systems that help track who is where, for the purposes of general information, ie tax purposes, zoning safety, etc. Much like there were steps that I went through when I moved from place to place to update my documents etc. I could even get behind thoughtfully screening out some folks, ie drug king pins, etc. So I think one could secure the border, end the garrison state around the world, use the savings and manpower to secure the border and then process prospective migrants in quick meaningful manner. But let those that want to come to work etc...come and work. Or those that want a climate with snow, come to such a climate. And vice versa. The earth is the Lord's.

Let the economic freedom reign with the labor market free to move and adjust accordingly.