The NT and OT do not command God’s people to arrange governments that allow economic migrants to masquerade as refugees. In fact, the NT speaks against the pursuit of wealth.
Okay, so just anyone can become a citizen because they want to?
Except we now have 8 billion people voting in our elections, and possibly with their interests in mind. There would be many dual citizens.
So can people living overseas vote?How about registered voters get mail-in ballots, but, as is the current law, that's up to the states.
So we now have 8 billion voters voting by mail, with no verification of identity other than “just trust me”.Voter ID seems to be unnecessary. Just have people sign that they are the registered voter they claim to be, with an appropriate penalty for a false affidavit.
I'll leave that for the AI experts to work on.[/quote]
The government has to use force. So you want violent force used to house the homeless… what does that look like? Am I forced to house the homeless? Perhaps I don’t want to live with someone using drugs and smoking in front of my children and the local homeless shelters don’t tolerate that either.True. That would be the imperative for us Christians. We just try to help our government be as moral as possible.
Things like "Do not mistreat them, feed the hungry, house the homeless, treat the sick." are things we could do by means of our government.
The New Testament may not lay out an ideal government, but it does give clear moral priorities — care for the poor, welcome for the outsider, and warnings against hard-heartedness toward those in need. The Old Testament, whatever else it contains, is also very explicit about protecting the sojourner, widow, and orphan.JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Jan 26, 2026 7:18 pmThe NT and OT do not command God’s people to arrange governments that allow economic migrants to masquerade as refugees. In fact, the NT speaks against the pursuit of wealth.
The NT doesn’t lay out an ideal system of government at all. The OT does - with commandments to go annihilate neighbouring countries, and then a framework for how to divide the spoils (including taking refugees as concubines and slaves) from the conquered peoples.
You’re using “violence” so broadly that it stops meaning anything clearly.JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Jan 26, 2026 7:25 pmThe government has to use force. So you want violent force used to house the homeless… what does that look like? Am I forced to house the homeless? Perhaps I don’t want to live with someone using drugs and smoking in front of my children and the local homeless shelters don’t tolerate that either.
The NT does not, however, say that as Christians we need to lobby the government to do these things. It tells us to do these things ourselves, not take other people's money via the barrel of a gun and then do that such things with other people's money.
An immigrant is not a "sojourner". It's someone who moves to a new place, not someone who is just passing through.The Old Testament, whatever else it contains, is also very explicit about protecting the sojourner, widow, and orphan.
Right. So pausing immigration for a while and clearing out the backlog of people who decided not to follow the country's laws when entering or overstaying their visa is part of those "imperfect" things that require "trade-offs". Part of immigration policy is being humane, fair, and protecting the vulnerable like people who are already here who need social welfare programmes (which can't be realistically provided if we have open borders), or who need to be protected from violent or fraud-loving people who bring the problems of gangs, cartel violence, and financial scams with them.I don't think Christians should advocate for or defend systems whose defining features are suspicion, cruelty, or indifference toward suffering outsiders. I think we should advocate for policies that are humane, fair, and protective of the vulnerable, even if they are imperfect or require trade-offs.
The things the New Testament says. Try to exist inside the laws of the country you live in, instead of being needlessly rebellious. Focus on the people right in front of you.If you disagree - what SHOULD Christians defend or advocate for, given both Old Testament and New Testament teaching about the vulnerable and the outsider?
You’re using “violence” so broadly that it stops meaning anything clearly.Bootstrap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 26, 2026 7:51 pmJohnH wrote: ↑Mon Jan 26, 2026 7:25 pmThe government has to use force. So you want violent force used to house the homeless… what does that look like? Am I forced to house the homeless? Perhaps I don’t want to live with someone using drugs and smoking in front of my children and the local homeless shelters don’t tolerate that either.
Detention is part and parcel of having a country with laws. If people don't follow a lawful deportation order to remove themselves, eventually they have to be detained and removed.What about state violence that does harm vulnerable people: detention
There's no need for families to be "separated". They may have to choose to leave the country together, though. Some may have a right to stay and others not. They will have to decide if they want to be together.family separation
I don't know what this means. America is one of the best places in the world to be "poor". The government showers you with benefits., criminalizing poverty,
The assumption that other countries in the world are so dangerous that nobody can be safely sent there is a bit ridiculous. Every country has pros and cons. The entire population of the world does not need to be granted a right to move to the United States to be "safe".or deporting people into danger?
I was responding to Jim's assertion that the government somehow has a responsibility to provide food and housing to literally everybody. I disagree with that as a fundamental premise of government, mostly because when governments have promised that (like Venezuela or the Soviet Union circa the 1940s) it seems to actually result in mass starvation and people ending up in very poor housing conditions. In fact, the end result seems to be so bad that I then hear that the United States must accept mass movements of people from those countries so that they can, apparently, find refuge in the United States.Do you think Christians should be silent about that? Those policies are also paid for with our taxes.
Why is it wrong to use taxes to help vulnerable people, but acceptable to use taxes in ways that harm them?
As I understand you now, you’re saying that Christians should focus on directly helping the vulnerable themselves, but should not advocate for government policies to do so, and should largely avoid political action in general, no matter what the topic. I definitely agree that we should help directly, but I also think advocating on behalf of the vulnerable is very Christian. I will not join a political party or give money to one, and I do not champion politicians or candidates online (or in private conversation, for that matter).JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Jan 26, 2026 7:53 pmThe things the New Testament says. Try to exist inside the laws of the country you live in, instead of being needlessly rebellious. Focus on the people right in front of you.
If we are "pilgrims and strangers", stay out of political protests. When one is visiting another country, you don't go and get involved in its politics or join a political protest or march.
Boot, what I actually think is important is democracy - and so far, the democratic will not just of Americans, but many people around the globe, is that they'd simply like less immigration. Of course, this doesn't mean that powerful people, elites, and politicians don't find ways to ignore the stated will of the voters. I think we can all agree that the last election was effectively a plebiscite on what should be done about immigration, and the result was that the democratic will of the people is to have a lot less of it, and to evict pretty much every illegal alien present in the United States.Bootstrap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 26, 2026 8:08 pmYou also think maintaining order, enforcing immigration law, and limiting strain on social systems can be part of a humane but imperfect trade-off. I actually agree with that in principle — but those trade-offs still have to be implemented humanely. Pausing all immigration strikes me as an extreme response, especially given that our population would be declining without immigration.
The New Testament simply does not teach that we need to have government policy of open borders. It doesn't teach governments can't engage in detention and removal of people according to immigration laws. The New Testament's commentary on interactions with the law is to make sure you are persecuted for righteousness' sake, not for actual lawbreaking.Where I disagree more fundamentally is this: the prophets repeatedly address rulers, laws, and public practices that harm the poor and the sojourner. I don’t see Jesus remaining silent when vulnerable people are harmed, and I find it especially troubling when clear cruelty is defended in the name of Christian values. That seems to be at the heart of our disagreement.
I'm not really engaged in this debate anywhere except on MN, and I'm mostly engaged in it because, despite their being a Politics subforum on MN, these political topics seem to constantly pop up in other subforums on MN. I decided there isn't some rule or law or code of ethics that requires me to be silent about my opinions whilst others sanctimoniously prattle on.Finally, I’m confused by how this plays out in practice. You are very engaged in public debate on this issue — and on other political issues as well. So I don’t actually see you as silent about government policy. If avoiding political advocacy is the principle, I would expect to see it applied consistently, across issues and on all sides.
