Illegal alien arrivals now greater than American births?

[Szdfan]

Can you please make your political posts in the Politics forum?

Thanks.

I’m not asking a political question. I’m asking a moral one. Is it moral or Christian to make jokes about feeding immigrants to alligators?

This is the result of dehumanization like “replacement” language.

Let's stick to the truth. I have yet to hear a Christian make jokes about feeding immigrants to alligators. Neither did I hear anyone say officials WILL feed the immigrants to the alligators. That whole premise is a lie. Immigrants will NOT be fed to alligators. If an escapee gets eaten by an alligator it will be the consequences of someone making a conscience effort to escape the facility. That falls on no one but the escapee, not on the officials.

Yes Trump (I do not consider him a Christian) did make light of the fact that if criminal immigrants attempt to escape the compound, they might get eaten by alligators. The way it was presented I find detestable as it isn't anything to make light of. He should have made a strong and serious warning that if criminal immigrants escape from the facility, the consequences could be that they might get eaten by alligators.

Suggesting that officials will feed immigrants to the alligators is dehumanizing as well.

I’m not accusing anyone of actually feeding immigrants to alligators. I’m asking what kind of worldview or morality makes that joke funny? What kind of politics allows jokes about humans being devoured?

It’s a joke built on cruelty and it’s jokes like these (and Great Replacement Theory) that normalize actual violence against people.

[JohnH]

I’m not accusing anyone of actually feeding immigrants to alligators. I’m asking what kind of worldview or morality makes that joke funny? What kind of politics

Is this the Politics forum?

What worldview / religion does Laura Loomer hold to? I honestly don’t know. What does any of this have to do with Anabaptism or Christianity? As far as I know she hasn’t claimed to be Christian.

[Grace]

I’m not accusing anyone of actually feeding immigrants to alligators. I’m asking what kind of worldview or morality makes that joke funny? What kind of politics allows jokes about humans being devoured?

It’s a joke built on cruelty and it’s jokes like these (and Great Replacement Theory) that normalize actual violence against people.

I am confused. Are you talking about Christians making jokes about immigrants and alligators, or the worldly politicians making jokes.

First it was:

I’m not asking a political question. I’m asking a moral one. Is it moral or Christian to make jokes about feeding immigrants to alligators?

Now it changed. Of course, it is wrong for Christians to make jokes about escapees being eaten by alligators. But Christians aren't doing that. (that I know of). As for worldly politicians making light of the possibility of escapees being eaten by alligators, what do you expect from the worldly politicians?

Concern about dehumanizing immigrants is very valid. But I am confused why this is a concern from those who were practically silent during the four years, when women and little girls were dehumanized into being trafficked, some as sex slaves, through the open borders.

[R7ehr]

I think you are using the same dehumanizing language that lies at the heart of far-right conspiracy theories regardless of your intentions or whether you came up with it on your own. “Replacement” rhetoric and Great Replacement Theory are not new. They are simply the latest packaging of old nativist and xenophobic arguments.

Your framework characterizes immigration as “replacement” and “invasion.” You've said that elites are deliberately using migration to displace American workers with low-wage foreigners. You frame the movement of people as the root cause of social harm. And you simultaneously deny the moral responsibility of your language while using it in precisely the ways it has historically been used to demonize and dehumanize immigrants.

While I understand your argument and can articulate your key claims, I am unwilling to intellectually or morally clean them up or pretend they're harmless. I won’t erase the history of what this language has been used to justify. I won’t pretend they’re neutral. And I don’t believe they are compatible with the Biblical imperatives for justice, hospitality, and care for the foreigner.

I understand you feel I'm misrepresenting and misunderstanding you. I understand you believe I’m waging a bad-faith campaign to harm you. You are entitled to those feelings. But I know what is in my heart. I don't want to harm you, but I also believe in holding people accountable for the words they use and the narratives they reinforce.

I am holding up a mirror here and asking you to reflect on what your framework and language implies. I think it reflects something that goes deeper than simple political or theological disagreement. I cannot accept the rhetoric or framework you've argued here as moral.

Regardless of your intentions, I believe your language and rhetoric echo a broader system of far-right ideology. Your refusal to acknowledge that doesn’t sever the connection. In recent years, rhetoric about “replacement” has been explicitly cited as justification for mass killings in Christchurch, El Paso, Buffalo, and the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. In each case, the perpetrators believed they were defending against an existential threat framed by the very same language of demographic replacement that you use.

I don't believe you support or condone these atrocities. I don't believe you're a Nazi or a white supremacist. But there are undeniable parallels between your rhetoric and theirs and that matters.

Intent does not erase the impact of your words. The language we use shapes how we see others, and when it's unintentional, using the same words as extremists supports the fear, dehumanization and violence they are trying to create.

I’m not trying to convince you. I’m trying to create a record. I want to make sure everyone understands what you're saying. We live in an especially anti-immigrant moment where ICE agents snatch people off the street, where the government builds detention camps in Florida, where officials joke about alligators eating immigrants. The cruelty is the point. And the mainstreaming of Great Replacement Theory is one of the engines driving it.

This won’t last forever. At some point, the moral rot will collapse under its own weight. And the church will finally be forced to ask itself, “How did we let this happen?”And we’ll know. Because voices in the church by God-fearing Christians have said it.

Clearly.

Again and again.

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be provocative (even though I probably am). I believe the Sciptures call us to speak out truthfully against harm, especially when it's hidden by polite or theological language. I think that an ideology of political grievance has caused many Christians in the US to support political action that harms some of the most vulnerable people in this country. I think this is something the church is called to name prophetically.

As a very conservative Christian, very well.
See, what I find so interesting, is how liberals cannot see sexual immorality with the same prophetic clarity.

”I think you are using the same normalizing language that lies at the heart of cultural compromise and moral decay, regardless of your intentions or whether you came to it on your own. The rhetoric surrounding “sexual freedom” and the rejection of traditional sexual ethics is not new. It’s simply the latest packaging of old attempts to justify what Scripture clearly calls sin.

Your framework characterizes biblical teaching on sexuality as “repressive” and “outdated.” You’ve suggested that Christian sexual ethics are harmful, that they suppress personal identity or cause psychological damage. You frame calls to holiness as the root of social harm. And yet you simultaneously deny the moral responsibility of your language while using it in precisely the ways it has historically been used to downplay, excuse, or glorify sin.

While I understand your argument and can articulate your key claims, I am unwilling to intellectually or morally clean them up or pretend they’re harmless. I won’t erase the history of what this rhetoric has done—to individuals, to families, to entire cultures. I won’t pretend these ideas are neutral. And I don’t believe they are compatible with the Biblical imperatives for purity, self-control, and honoring God with our bodies.

I understand you feel I’m misrepresenting or misunderstanding you. I understand you believe I’m being harsh or uncharitable. You are entitled to those feelings. But I know what is in my heart. I don’t want to harm you—but I do believe in holding people accountable for the narratives they promote and the moral frameworks they adopt.

I’m holding up a mirror here and asking you to reflect on what your language implies. I think it reflects something deeper than a simple theological disagreement. I cannot accept the framework you’ve argued here as moral.

Regardless of your intentions, I believe your rhetoric echoes the broader cultural movement that has desacralized sex and undermined covenantal relationships. Your refusal to acknowledge that doesn’t sever the connection. In recent years, the rejection of biblical sexual ethics has been at the core of widespread spiritual confusion, family fragmentation, and emotional harm. And the broader sexual revolution—once hailed as liberation—has left countless people wounded and disillusioned.

I don’t believe you support the worst fruits of this movement. I don’t believe you wish harm. But there are undeniable parallels between your rhetoric and the cultural forces that have contributed to profound harm. And that matters.

Intent does not erase the impact of your words. The language we use shapes how we see others—and ourselves. And when it subtly adopts the tone of those who reject God’s design, it contributes to the spiritual numbness and moral chaos that mark our age.

I’m not trying to convince you. I’m trying to bear witness. I want to make sure everyone understands what you’re saying. We live in a moment when the sacredness of the body is mocked, where pornography is normalized, where children are sexualized, and where any call to restraint is treated as bigotry. The cruelty of this confusion is real. And the normalization of sexual immorality—sometimes even within the church—is one of the engines driving it.

This won’t last forever. At some point, the moral collapse will give way to hunger for truth. And the church will be forced to ask itself, “How did we let this happen?” And we’ll know. Because voices in the church—voices of God-fearing Christians—have said it.

Clearly.

Again and again.

Believe it or not, I’m not trying to be provocative (even though I probably am). I believe the Scriptures call us to speak out truthfully against harm, especially when it’s hidden beneath therapeutic or theological language. I think that an ideology of self-gratification has caused many Christians in the U.S. to abandon the call to holiness. And I believe this is something the church is called to name prophetically.”

[ken_sylvania]

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.

I think that's a reasonable approximation. I would maybe say I thought that statement was an oversimplification rather than being naive. And then, it's not so much that you made a connection between fear of demographic shift and racism so much as I felt like you implied that anyone who is afraid of an increase in drug dealing, violence, and unlicensed driving is in fact afraid of people because of their skin color.

[barnhart]

What if I posted a long complaint comparing immigrants to a vermin infestation but when confronted, I would say it's not negative because I never said vermin infestations are bad.

[ken_sylvania]

What if I posted a long complaint comparing immigrants to a vermin infestation but when confronted, I would say it's not negative because I never said vermin infestations are bad.

I'd think the influence of some of the other posters on this forum must be starting to rub off on you.

[barnhart]

What if I posted a long complaint comparing immigrants to a vermin infestation but when confronted, I would say it's not negative because I never said vermin infestations are bad.

I'd think the influence of some of the other posters on this forum must be starting to rub off on you.

I was trying to make a point, not to you, that the demand that truth must be internal is not ideal or Christian. In his wonderful autobiography The Pilgrims Regress, C S Lewis imagines the hero on a quest to regain the closeness with God he experienced as child. Along with way he passes through perils that illustrate the ideologies or philosophies that whispered in his ear along with way. Sigmund Freud is presented as a great seeing god high on a mountain with x-ray vision such that the internals of the body become visible under his gaze. To escape the horrible things within, he hid in a cave away from the seeing eye, trapped for a long time.

Some things are wrong or right without needing to carefully judge intent. We don't need to have an accurate account of the internal motivation of xenophobes to condemn xenophobia. This is one complaint I had about those who raised individualist objections to the possibility of racism in society. Sometimes it's not about how you feel but what you are doing.

[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.

I think that's a reasonable approximation. I would maybe say I thought that statement was an oversimplification rather than being naive. And then, it's not so much that you made a connection between fear of demographic shift and racism so much as I felt like you implied that anyone who is afraid of an increase in drug dealing, violence, and unlicensed driving is in fact afraid of people because of their skin color.

Thanks for that affirmation that I am mostly understanding. Regarding your feeling that I was implying that anyone afraid of an increase in violence, etc...is racist, I can understand at a certain level why that felt off putting.

In essence what I was trying to communicate is that as a historical reality, those associations are made when immigrants or simply migrants as in the Great Migration, who are mostly people of color, move into a neighborhood. I could give multiple personal examples of things that were said, based in fear, directly to me

In as much as I have directly accused people of such, I want to clear that up. I am intending only to make historical and present observations regarding how and why American society receives immigrants, who are near totally, people of color. And I do believe that immigrants of color are associated unfairly with violence, criminals, rapists and what have you with regard to language. And I feel there is a racial component.

At the end if the day, the golden rule applies in my mind. If I were in their shoes, what would I want? Will we in fact welcome the foreigner and treat them as one of us? Or will we defend what we all plainly observe with regard to how foreigners are being treated?

[JohnH]

I am intending only to make historical and present observations regarding how and why American society receives immigrants, who are near totally, people of color.

… so immigrants have been and are near totally “people of color”?

Why does it matter to bring up race at all? Why is it important? Why can’t we just view people as human beings, and the groupings of people identified by ways other than race?

Don’t you want to have a colorblind society?