People who choose detention: What does good look like?

[JohnH]

Plain Anabaptists endeavour to live in such a way that they bring about Christ's kingdom in the domain and sphere of influence they control. For example, they try not to renege on debts, try not to take advantage/rip off workers, and so on. They do not, however, seek to acquire or influence the state to achieve those ends.

You wrote that plain Anabaptists seek to live out Christ’s kingdom within the sphere they directly influence, without seeking to control the state.

How does that principle shape the way you engage in threads like this one?

It’s worthwhile to ask how to consider the right conduct towards people who choose detention over a reasonable alternative (like being repatriated to Ireland).

[Bootstrap]

Plain Anabaptists endeavour to live in such a way that they bring about Christ's kingdom in the domain and sphere of influence they control. For example, they try not to renege on debts, try not to take advantage/rip off workers, and so on. They do not, however, seek to acquire or influence the state to achieve those ends.

You wrote that plain Anabaptists seek to live out Christ’s kingdom within the sphere they directly influence, without seeking to control the state.

How does that principle shape the way you engage in threads like this one?

It’s worthwhile to ask how to consider the right conduct towards people who choose detention over a reasonable alternative (like being repatriated to Ireland).

If the Anabaptist principle is to focus on the domain and sphere of influence you actually control, how does debating federal immigration enforcement fit into that? This isn’t something you or I directly govern.

And if the goal isn’t to influence the state, then what is the aim of arguing the merits of detention versus repatriation here? Is it about personal moral reflection, or about shaping public opinion on how the state should act?

I’m trying to understand how that framework applies in a case like this.

[JohnH]

You wrote that plain Anabaptists seek to live out Christ’s kingdom within the sphere they directly influence, without seeking to control the state.

How does that principle shape the way you engage in threads like this one?

It’s worthwhile to ask how to consider the right conduct towards people who choose detention over a reasonable alternative (like being repatriated to Ireland).

If the Anabaptist principle is to focus on the domain and sphere of influence you actually control, how does debating federal immigration enforcement fit into that? This isn’t something you or I directly govern.

And if the goal isn’t to influence the state, then what is the aim of arguing the merits of detention versus repatriation here? Is it about personal moral reflection, or about shaping public opinion on how the state should act?

I’m trying to understand how that framework applies in a case like this.

It’s analogous to discussing the NFL. MennoNet frequently has discussions about these topics.

It feels to me like you’re just trying to say I can’t express an opinion on this topic. I think I can. I don’t see a problem with discussing politics or current events.

[Bootstrap]

If the Anabaptist principle is to focus on the domain and sphere of influence you actually control, how does debating federal immigration enforcement fit into that? This isn’t something you or I directly govern.

And if the goal isn’t to influence the state, then what is the aim of arguing the merits of detention versus repatriation here? Is it about personal moral reflection, or about shaping public opinion on how the state should act?

I’m trying to understand how that framework applies in a case like this.

It’s analogous to discussing the NFL. MennoNet frequently has discussions about these topics.

It feels to me like you’re just trying to say I can’t express an opinion on this topic. I think I can. I don’t see a problem with discussing politics or current events.

I’m not saying you can’t express an opinion. Of course you can. We’re all doing that here.

I was asking about the principle you described — focusing on the sphere you directly influence and not seeking to shape the state. Talking about the NFL doesn’t really test that principle. Talking about detention and removal policy does, because it’s precisely about how the state exercises power.

So I’m not objecting to the discussion. I’m asking how you apply your framework when the subject is government enforcement authority.

[JohnH]

Part of how I apply my framework is to talk honestly about the situation.

We have people who prefer detention for months or years on short term facilities in America over going back to Ireland, Guatemala, or whatever. That’s something with discussing.

[Bootstrap]

Part of how I apply my framework is to talk honestly about the situation.

We have people who prefer detention for months or years on short term facilities in America over going back to Ireland, Guatemala, or whatever. That’s something with discussing.

I don't think you are framing this situation honestly, but I also wonder why you choose to discuss it at all.

If the Anabaptist principle is to focus on the domain and sphere of influence you actually control, how does debating federal immigration enforcement fit into that? This isn’t something you or I directly govern.

And if the goal isn’t to influence the state, then what is the aim of arguing the merits of detention versus repatriation here? Is it about personal moral reflection, or about shaping public opinion on how the state should act?

You clearly want to provoke strong feelings against this guy, and you clearly want to defend what the government is doing here. Why?

[JohnH]

Part of how I apply my framework is to talk honestly about the situation.

We have people who prefer detention for months or years on short term facilities in America over going back to Ireland, Guatemala, or whatever. That’s something with discussing.

I don't think you are framing this situation honestly, but I also wonder why you choose to discuss it at all.

It came up in a different thread and was worth discussing separately. The original topic concerned claims that “this Irishman is being indefinitely detained.” This thread is to discuss why some people are in detention a long time.

If the Anabaptist principle is to focus on the domain and sphere of influence you actually control, how does debating federal immigration enforcement fit into that? This isn’t something you or I directly govern.

Because several other forum participants, like you keep bringing it up in multiple subforums here (including non politics subforums), and I don’t feel like such folks can somehow filibuster me from the discussion by saying “you aren’t allowed to talk about that.”

If you brought up the NFL in lots of subforums, I’d probably end up talking about that too. Ask me how I feel about the Chargers moving to LA.

And if the goal isn’t to influence the state, then what is the aim of arguing the merits of detention versus repatriation here? Is it about personal moral reflection, or about shaping public opinion on how the state should act?

You clearly want to provoke strong feelings against this guy, and you clearly want to defend what the government is doing here. Why?

My goal was to make it not about “that guy” and instead discuss the much broader situation of thousands of people who want to choose detention.

[Bootstrap]

I don't think you are framing this situation honestly, but I also wonder why you choose to discuss it at all.

It came up in a different thread and was worth discussing separately. The original topic concerned claims that “this Irishman is being indefinitely detained.” This thread is to discuss why some people are in detention a long time.

He was taken into custody during an enforcement action at Home Depot. Prior to that, he was participating in the legal process, waiting for a ruling.

The reason he remains in detention seems straightforward. He has an appeal pending. As I understand it, this involves a single appeal that has not yet been heard by a judge. That does not look like “dragging things out” or pursuing every conceivable legal maneuver.

He has been in the U.S. since 2009, so this is not a newly arrived border case. If he leaves the country, he forfeits his legal standing to pursue that appeal. Remaining in detention is the only way to preserve his claim.

If he were released, he would be waiting at home with his family rather than in jail. Whether he ultimately wins or loses, he is waiting for his case to be heard.

[Bootstrap]

If the Anabaptist principle is to focus on the domain and sphere of influence you actually control, how does debating federal immigration enforcement fit into that? This isn’t something you or I directly govern.

Because several other forum participants, like you keep bringing it up in multiple subforums here (including non politics subforums), and I don’t feel like such folks can somehow filibuster me from the discussion by saying “you aren’t allowed to talk about that.”

You are certainly allowed to talk about whatever you want. If you tell me that you believe we should focus only on the domain we directly control, then I think it’s reasonable to ask how you are applying that principle in these discussions. And I think it's fair to ask me if I am really applying my understanding of what Scripture teaches on justice, mercy, and faithfulness to these discussions as well.

I think the Scripture threads work better if we stick to what the Bible actually says and avoid turning them into debates about ICE, political parties, or current enforcement. If we want to argue about how things should be applied today, Current Events seems like the right place for that. To me, it's really important to preserve a space where we can actually discuss the Bible and think about how we should apply its teachings to our own faith and practice.

What keeps striking me is that law isn’t just about punishment. Not in the Bible, and not in modern American law. It’s also about fairness, mercy, proportionality, and due process. In Scripture especially, the law puts responsibilities on those in authority as well as on everyone else.

That seems relevant whenever we talk about enforcement.

I also think we should avoid character attacks, exaggerations, or loaded language. Those don’t help us think clearly about either Scripture or policy.

[JohnH]

Immigration law isn’t about punishment, period. Detention and removal aren’t punishments for doing something wrong.