Illegal alien arrivals now greater than American births?

[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.

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."

Fair point...on the other hand...yes there is another kingdom we can go to for authority and legitimacy.

[Ken]

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."

The entire history of the world is a history of human migration and conflict and of stronger groups imposing their will over weaker groups. Starting with the very earliest written texts like Exodus and the Iliad and continuing on up to this day (Ukraine, Gaza, Uyghurs, the Congo, Sudan, Syria, etc.)

I don’t think it is possible to live anywhere in this world that is free of any history of conflict, exploitation, or violence. No such place exists. But I think we can be more humble and aware of our own histories and more generous towards those who have been displaced and exploited, either by our ancestors or others. That seems to me to be the fundamental message of Jesus.

I live on land that was stolen from the Chinook and Cowlitz peoples along the Columbia. Who no doubt took it from others going on back into pre-history. Does that mean I plan to give it back? No. That ship has sailed. But it does mean I try to be thoughtful and generous towards others who have less and who may be seeking refuge in the lands that I temporarily occupy along with other Americans. As well as to the descendants of the original inhabitants of this land. I think that is exactly what Jesus teaches.

[HondurasKeiser]

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."

Fair point...on the other hand...yes there is another kingdom we can go to for authority and legitimacy.

I find your beliefs about the Christian and the State not just head-scratchingly odd but also neither Anabaptist nor Biblical.

[joshuabgood]

I find your beliefs not just head-scratchingly odd but also neither Anabaptist nor Biblical.

Well they are attempted to be centered on Kingdom understanding of the good news. Christ came and founded a kingdom we are part of that is taking over. As they say, he didn't come to take sides but to take over and set things right. The S on the M is the manifesto. It's a real kingdom albeit not a geopolitical state like the kingdoms of this world. An upside down kingdom where the levers arent violence and power but the way of the cross, that is, suffering love. That is the only legitimate king and kingdom. No Caesar or King but Christ.

[mike]

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.

Power, ambition, and violence are the way of the world, the way of 'native' peoples, and the 'native' peoples before them, from time immemorial. Anabaptists have at times struggled with just which power is the legitimate one at any given time, i.e. during the American Revolution. I don't believe they spent a lot of time trying to figure out the legitimacy of a government; if it had 'the power,' they subjected themselves. Jesus could well have exercised the same critique of the Roman government, but he told people to pay taxes, and he submitted; so did the apostles. The Romans had no power other than naked imperial power based on the sword. That doesn't Rome or the United States unique, it makes them of a kind with all the other civil governments of history.

[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.

Power, ambition, and violence are the way of the world, the way of 'native' peoples, and the 'native' peoples before them, from time immemorial. Anabaptists have at times struggled with just which power is the legitimate one at any given time, i.e. during the American Revolution. I don't believe they spent a lot of time trying to figure out the legitimacy of a government; if it had 'the power,' they subjected themselves. Jesus could well have exercised the same critique of the Roman government, but he told people to pay taxes, and he submitted; so did the apostles. The Romans had no power other than naked imperial power based on the sword. That doesn't Rome or the United States unique, it makes them of a kind with all the other civil governments of history.

Sure. None of those are legitimate either. Christ told us to pay the Roman's taxes like you mentioned, but he also told us to submit to robbers and thieves by giving our cloak also and turning the other cheek when persecuted. Those are not however justification for rule by divine right by either party. God doesn't war with himself. The Americans and the British were not both God's divinely appointed holy rulers killing each other.

[mike]

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.

Power, ambition, and violence are the way of the world, the way of 'native' peoples, and the 'native' peoples before them, from time immemorial. Anabaptists have at times struggled with just which power is the legitimate one at any given time, i.e. during the American Revolution. I don't believe they spent a lot of time trying to figure out the legitimacy of a government; if it had 'the power,' they subjected themselves. Jesus could well have exercised the same critique of the Roman government, but he told people to pay taxes, and he submitted; so did the apostles. The Romans had no power other than naked imperial power based on the sword. That doesn't Rome or the United States unique, it makes them of a kind with all the other civil governments of history.

Sure. None of those are legitimate either. Christ told us to pay the Roman's taxes like you mentioned, but he also told us to submit to robbers and thieves by giving our cloak also and turning the other cheek when persecuted. Those are not however justification for rule by divine right.

I agree 100%. But our submission to these governments, however illegitimate, plays into our struggle of how to view illegal immigration. I find it hard to fully sympathize with someone who experiences the consequences of knowingly violating the government's laws, even while I might empathize with them on some level. And I choose not to attempt to substantively influence those laws, as I feel the whole system is of the worldly kingdoms and cannot by definition operate according to Christ's laws of love.

[Bootstrap]

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."

But in the Kingdom of God, we can decide whether to join these powers in spreading hatred and fear and false witness. Or to love and serve our neighbors, looking to the Bible for guidance.

I'm worried about the Great Replacement of biblical teaching with politicized, high-drama, polarized themes that lead in the opposite direction. I'm not worried about neighbors who come from other places, speak other languages, cook interesting food, and have a variety of skin colors - they are not replacing me.

And they are certainly not replacing me in the Kingdom of God. I'd love to invite them to join us there.

[Ken]

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.

Power, ambition, and violence are the way of the world, the way of 'native' peoples, and the 'native' peoples before them, from time immemorial. Anabaptists have at times struggled with just which power is the legitimate one at any given time, i.e. during the American Revolution. I don't believe they spent a lot of time trying to figure out the legitimacy of a government; if it had 'the power,' they subjected themselves. Jesus could well have exercised the same critique of the Roman government, but he told people to pay taxes, and he submitted; so did the apostles. The Romans had no power other than naked imperial power based on the sword. That doesn't Rome or the United States unique, it makes them of a kind with all the other civil governments of history.

One thing Jesus most definitely DID NOT teach is that Christians should take advantage of Roman property law, the Roman monetary system, or Roman commercial law (guilds, etc.) to accumulate wealth and prosperity. To the contrary. He taught the opposite. To the point of impracticality even. For example, it is one thing to give everything to the poor and just “follow Jesus” if one is young, healthy, and single. Not so practical if one is the head of a multi-generational household with children, the elderly, and or sick to tend to. So I think one has to find one’s own path while bearing in mind the basic principles that Jesus taught. Such as the last will be first and the first will be last.

[joshuabgood]

And I choose not to attempt to substantively influence those laws, as I feel the whole system is of the worldly kingdoms and cannot by definition operate according to Christ's laws of love.

Why not advocate for them to bit by bit create policies that are in harmony with and build the kingdom of God? Can't we, wherever possible, advocate and affirm those pieces that are in harmony with God's kingdom, wherever we find them or wherever they could exist? And who knows, if bit by bit, as with Wilbeeforce, things will turn ever so slowly God's direction and come under his reign and rule?

And also, if we know something is sus, ie say American Indian lands being given away in OK or GA, ot in the west, opting not to participate that way. Could we have done a better job honoring those that were here when we moved? Ruth and others seem to suggest so and I find there thinking compelling.