Illegal alien arrivals now greater than American births?

[mike]

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.

I'm taking the long view when I use this phrase, thinking of my Mennonite and Amish parents, grandparents, and so on for generations, who were law-abiding citizens, paying taxes and staying out of trouble with the government in every way possible with some notable exceptions for conscience' sake such as advocating for private education or opting out of social security benefits. It's hard to argue that in large part, the Anabaptist heritage is not one of lawful migration and also of peaceful, law-abiding citizenship to the extent possible in every place of the earth where they found themselves. There is a strong contrast between this heritage and that of people who migrate illegally, overstay visas, and otherwise fail to comply with immigration laws.

[Bootstrap]

All that to say, I would hope you might know me better at this point than to assume that I would make such a flippant correlation between race and vice.

Thanks for your clarification - it's helpful.

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.

I think it's really helpful if each person says what they themselves are for. Often, people seem to be saying what they do NOT advocate, and then saying what those other people want - but not accurately. That's why I asked you to clarify what you said.

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.

You seem to be implying that people who are opposed to Great Replacement Theory want no limitations to immigration. Very few people believe that. If you are not sure how to interpret something I say, feel free to ask for clarification.

I would be interested in your perspective on the Renaud Camus quotes and outlines I just posted.

[Bootstrap]

I used GPT to generate outlines of two of Renaud Camus' most important works. Perhaps this will help explain why I think Christians should avoid signing on to Great Replacement ideology.

I am really concerned that this kind of thing is being mainstreamed in this country. Even by Christians.

Outline of Le Grand Remplacement (2011)

1. Definition of the concept
- Replacement of one people by another
- Framed as the central fact of our time
- Described as simple and obvious to anyone who looks

2. Denial and complicity
- Elites (political, media, cultural) accused of actively enabling this transformation
- Denunciation of “official discourse” that denies it is happening

3. Historical perspective
- Claims this is the biggest change since the fall of the Roman Empire or the Barbarian invasions
- Presents it as a civilizational threat

4. Mechanisms of replacement
- Mass immigration
- Higher birth rates among newcomers
- Cultural erasure and suppression of dissent

5. Call to awareness
- Urges readers to recognize and name the process
- Frames refusal to see it as moral cowardice

Outline of Le Changement de Peuple (2013)

1. Concept clarification
- Distinguishes between immigration as an economic phenomenon and “replacement” as civilizational
- Argues replacement is intentional and ideological

2. Cultural colonization
- Describes the process as colonization, conquest, and occupation
- Introduces the phrase “substitution ethnique” (ethnic substitution)

3. Psychological warfare
- Claims that native populations are manipulated into accepting their own disappearance
- Discusses propaganda, moral blackmail, and guilt

4. Role of the state and globalism
- Asserts that governments, NGOs, and international institutions are driving replacism
- Introduces “remplacisme global” (global replacism) as a totalitarian ideology

5. Declaration of struggle
- Describes the situation as a form of war
- Suggests nonviolent resistance is necessary to preserve European peoples
- Emphasizes urgency and existential stakes

[JohnH]

Perhaps a good question, then, is what limitations in terms of numbers you think would be good - specifically, how much population churn should be allowed. Suppose a country is 100 million people? Should it be capped at 1 million a year? 5? 10?

What about over 10 years? What percentage should be allowed to be admitted? 10% of the current population? 100%?

Consider specific states or towns. My town is 3,000 people and unable to really expand to hold more people without massive investments in sewer and water (they just spent a bunch on maintaining it and had to raise everyone’s rates) that take 30-50 years for the bonds thereof to be repaid; the same is true of schools which are at capacity and bonds for those are repaid over about 20 years. So there isn’t any extra money to admit new people. This manifests in that there aren’t many apartments for rent or houses for sale. (Someone can invest $300k+ to build a small house on a parcel at least 1 acre and pay for septic and well, of course, outside of town limits, but that still doesn’t address the school overcrowding situation.) There are also not surplus jobs here for a large number of new arrivals. There are enough for the people currently here and the economy, housing, medical care, and schooling situation is stable.

Should 3,000 migrants be allowed to just arrive and be “placed” here? 10,000? 1,000? Should the people already here have any say in that?

JBG has a consistent position he doesn’t recognize any legitimacy for governments to restrict the movement of peoples globally for any reason, other than perhaps drug kingpins. I respect his consistency as it’s part of an overall framework he doesn’t view governments as having legitimacy to regulate or tax trade either (I don’t know his position on things like taxes or building codes). His worldview seems to be that overcrowding is a good thing and part of human flourishing. I feel his worldview is a separate discussion topic.

So for the rest of you… in my not so hypothetical description, how much should be “allowed”? And how should people in 3,000 person town feel if 10,000 new arrivals just show up?

[JohnH]

I used GPT to generate outlines of two of Renaud Camus' most important works. Perhaps this will help explain why I think Christians should avoid signing on to Great Replacement ideology.

I am really concerned that this kind of thing is being mainstreamed in this country. Even by Christians.

Outline of Le Grand Remplacement (2011)

1. Definition of the concept
- Replacement of one people by another
- Framed as the central fact of our time
- Described as simple and obvious to anyone who looks

2. Denial and complicity
- Elites (political, media, cultural) accused of actively enabling this transformation
- Denunciation of “official discourse” that denies it is happening

3. Historical perspective
- Claims this is the biggest change since the fall of the Roman Empire or the Barbarian invasions
- Presents it as a civilizational threat

4. Mechanisms of replacement
- Mass immigration
- Higher birth rates among newcomers
- Cultural erasure and suppression of dissent

5. Call to awareness
- Urges readers to recognize and name the process
- Frames refusal to see it as moral cowardice

Outline of Le Changement de Peuple (2013)

1. Concept clarification
- Distinguishes between immigration as an economic phenomenon and “replacement” as civilizational
- Argues replacement is intentional and ideological

2. Cultural colonization
- Describes the process as colonization, conquest, and occupation
- Introduces the phrase “substitution ethnique” (ethnic substitution)

3. Psychological warfare
- Claims that native populations are manipulated into accepting their own disappearance
- Discusses propaganda, moral blackmail, and guilt

4. Role of the state and globalism
- Asserts that governments, NGOs, and international institutions are driving replacism
- Introduces “remplacisme global” (global replacism) as a totalitarian ideology

5. Declaration of struggle
- Describes the situation as a form of war
- Suggests nonviolent resistance is necessary to preserve European peoples
- Emphasizes urgency and existential stakes

I don’t see anything relevant to why Christians should agree or disagree with any of this. It’s just an area of policy, like tariffs or tax policy. I formed my opinions well before 2011, but I would agree with some of the above and disagree with some.

I do think from what you’ve described he may have helpful insights on avoiding conflict and war, including unconventional warfare. I think Christians should lean on the side of peacemaking and avoiding creating conflicts.

My reading list has higher priorities in it right now than books about immigration policy so I doubt I’ll read this book anytime soon, or ever.

[Ken]

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.

This pretty much sums up this whole thread.

Civil disobedience for me but not for thee. Or the law applies to thee but not to me.

OK then.

[JohnH]

This pretty much sums up this whole thread.

Civil disobedience for me but not for thee. Or the law applies to thee but not to me.

OK then.

That is not what I said. I said civil disobedience may be acceptable when necessary to attend church services. I said it is not acceptable in order to make more money.

[Ken]

This pretty much sums up this whole thread.

Civil disobedience for me but not for thee. Or the law applies to thee but not to me.

OK then.

That is not what I said. I said civil disobedience may be acceptable when necessary to attend church services. I said it is not acceptable in order to make more money.

Did you even read what you wrote?

You started out on business closures which is the very definition of economic no different from people seeking work. Then you pivoted to church which was never closed in your state. In my state indoor in person churches were closed briefly during the first few months after they were shown to cause death then they transitioned to a phased reopening plan.

But generally speaking this forum is full of endless discussions of Menno/Anabaptist scofflaws.

The endless threads about illegal sales of raw milk
Driving of illegal vehicles on public highways
There was one about illegal gun sales by the Amish
Long threads about breaking of anti-discrimination laws

And so forth

[joshuabgood]

the Anabaptist heritage is...one of lawful migration

I get this sort of...

But on the other hand, the question of the legitimacy of European colonialism, imperialism, and colonial immigration is far from "settled" in the realm of history/social science. On what legal basis, besides imperial power, did the colonial charters order and rule? And on what, besides guns germs and steel, did those imperial powers rule?

There are many who feel it was pure naked power, ambition, and violence that "legalized" such charters and subsequent invitations and immigrations.

[ohio jones]

the Anabaptist heritage is...one of lawful migration

I get this sort of...

But on the other hand, the question of the legitimacy of European colonialism, imperialism, and colonial immigration is far from "settled" in the realm of history/social science. On what legal basis, besides imperial power, did the colonial charters order and rule? And on what, besides guns germs and steel, did those imperial powers rule?

There are many who feel it was pure naked power, ambition, and violence that "legalized" such charters and subsequent invitations and immigrations.

If we are only willing to live under the rule of earthly powers that are free from ambition and violence, is there anywhere could we go?

They are the "powers that be" not necessarily the "powers that ought to be."