Southern Baptists, Immigration, and doing the right thing

You are hillarious, you offer no rebuttal and make an assessment, you answer none of my questions and then jettison an argument that was solely based upon the North's theological argument against slavery as being a non-argument.

Have a great day, until you engage and refrain from throwing around comments and refuse to answer questions, you are only trolling.

 

The laws are very complicated but can be found here:

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/USimmigrationlegislation.html

However, for a summary of some of the laws I point you to here:

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet

The point here is that except for a few exceptions, immigration is based primarily on socio-economics. This is what we base our employment based immigration policies upon. My premise is that this is an immoral system.

 

People keep bringing up arguments about the economics. My argument is about the morals. However, the Heritage Foundation (who advocates a policy different than my own) clearly showed that the economics is not the issue for their opposition to my position. I wanted to quote it here because there are too many misconceptions of the economics and I wanted to move us towards talking about the morality of our current process, not make economics on the same plane as morality. While this was written before the recent crash in the economy, I know of no economist who blames immigration for the bust nor do they believe it is worse because of immigration policies.

Thus my proposal for an easier way into the United States based merely upon whether they are good or bad people, is wise. The effect on our economy is positive. The infrastructure to limit the bad is already in place and thus a sunk cost. So, including more into the country of all socio-economic levels are good for the economy.

 

Again, you are making an argument that is not my own. My argument is that the United States of America is basing their immigration policy upon "who is acceptable" to come in, not upon "who is bad and who is good." That is not the role of government and is immoral and wrong. In other words, they are basing their preferences on economics, not that people are humans.

We want to keep bad people out. Great! Let's do that. Yet, it should not be government's role to "pick and choose" people and play socio-economic games with them. If there are no jobs for them, they will go home.

I am surprised the capitalists who believe in free markets believe in a socialist immigration policy instead of the free markets. Not that free markets is a moral issue, but it is a moral issue that we should treat each person as important because they are human, not because they are rich.

 

Salty,

The entire point of the article is that they are producing. That is the point. Thus, your point that they are placing a burden on our society is wrong.

Yet, my point is the moral issue of our immigration policy, not economic.

 

Man,

I wish you would read my entire posts before you accuse me of things. I said,

So, I only quoted this section to show that economic arguments against my position are wrong but I clearly showed that there is a distinction between economic and moral arguments. However, I am not basing my support of immigration policy upon economics and made is painfully clear that I was not doing such. If you would have read my post, it is clear. You have bore false witness against me on this topic, and that is not acceptable.

Please read my posts. I think you may learn something and it will make you look less like a troll, and more like someone willing to engage in the discussion. Otherwise, please don't continue in this discussion. I like people who engage, not troll.

Thanks!

 

John,

I referred to several scriptures. First, I referred to the Genesis understanding that we were created in God's image. Secondly, I referred to the scripture that God is no respector of persons. Finally, I referred to James where he commands us to not play preferences to people.

These verses built the background that basing an immigration policy upon someone's socio-economic standing violated these principles. Rather, our policy should not give first priority to the rich and those who have jobs that we really want. Rather, we should base our immigration policy merely on the rightful rule of government, that is to protect our people. Thus, criminals terrorists, and the like should be excluded.

No one has disputed my interpretation nor application of these verses to this situation. As well, these are established principles of the church.

I agree with Timsing that the other verses in this conversation were not addressed.

Thus, while I have not exegetically dealt with these verses, history has and I do not believe I am out of bounds on these verses.

 

JK,

You are correct, if the law is a legitimate and moral law. However, if the law is immoral then Christianity has often shown that there is nothing wrong with disobeying an immoral law (we have also said that there is nothing wrong with disobeying a law outside the sphere of the lawgiver's rightful authority or God given authority).

Thus, if this is an immoral law, it would not be immoral to break that law. If this is a moral law, then we are obligated to adhere to this law.

If this is an immoral law as I advance, then there is nothing heinous about disobeying this law like it was not heinous for Peter to disobey when he was told to stop preaching.

 

Don,

Because we are then stating a person's worth is measured economically. THis is like an abortionist who would say that a living baby is useless because they will be an economic scourge on society. To which, all of us who are pro-life would retort, the issue is not how much they are worth economically, but that they were created in God's image and their worth is merely by them being human.