I would tend to agree with you about laws stemming from morality; the people who created them intended them for good for the society. The immigration laws were meant to be "what's best for the United States." So the argument you have to support is, how are the immigration laws not good for the United States and its citizens, and how does what you're proposing benefit the United States and its citizens?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Undocumented immigrants
- Thread starter freeatlast
- Start date
Don,
I want to be careful in answering you because I do not want it to sound like that because I see some benefits (economic and otherwise) means I base my morality from these economic factors. Yet, I will include them.
First, I think our laws are not good because we base immigration on your status as a person, not the character of the person. Thus, if you are rich, come to America! If you are poor, you can't or we put many hurdles in your way and limit you severely that it could take years. In 2005, we reached the legal immigration limit setup by congress on the first day of the new year. Thus, our limitations are too strict.
Secondly, according to the Heritage Foundation, immigration is a positive for our economy like free trade. Note my article here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1694716&postcount=85
If you look at it from a pure economic perspective, it is a boom for our country to have immigration. Free Trade Republicans should be the biggest advocates for free immigration. With over $50 Trillion in future obligations, there is almost no way we can reach this without expanding our work force. We can best do this by having free immigration (even with Immigration, a great amount of cuts is needed to meet all our obligations).
Finally, as a Christian I believe we would be wise to use immigration as a way to reaching the world in our own backyard.
Could we have a basic two criteria as mentioned in the other thread? A criteria where they must have a job (or get a job within so many days) and they cannot be a threat to our people (not a terrorist, drug runner, or felon). This sounds reasonable. The market itself will determine how many people can come over and work. If there are no jobs, there will be fewer people coming over. Yet, if we had to decide (from a pure economic perspective) in having a business in the U.S. with immigrant workers or that same business in Mexico, I would rather it here.
>>Good for 51% of the SBC. The dictatorship of the 51% which you all love so well. <G>
>Don't you think this was an ad hominem attack? Not really a logical engagement in the topic.
That's the trouble with you Baptists - don't know the difference between an insult and a compliment.
The topic is the SBC making a good decision.
>Don't you think this was an ad hominem attack? Not really a logical engagement in the topic.
That's the trouble with you Baptists - don't know the difference between an insult and a compliment.
The topic is the SBC making a good decision.
Robert Snow
New Member
I could not agree more!
It is entirely possible for a person to be in favor of this stand by the SBC and still see that something has to be done legally to solve this immigration problem we face.
All I know is, Jesus wants me to love all sinners, so, documented or not, I'm going to do what I can to help you, and if that means drive you to Walmart, I will, even if some stupid law just passed in my states makes such an act of kindness against the law. Like others, I welcome the immigrants and the opportunity to reach the world from our backyard, but it may be God's will that the immigrants we have evangelized here return home through prosecution/deportation to evangelize their own countries. I don't know.
I welcome all immigrants, who follow the law. If you're here illegally, well....
Just as I thought, Your "moral" argument is nothing more than a cover to accomodate your own prejudices.
'nuff said.
I think this is a step in the right direction for the SBC. And it is a religious/sacred issue, since the way we treat others should be an extension of the gospel in our lives.
I mean, I think the SBC is largely out of step and is quickly becoming irrelevant as an entity. Still, I am thrilled to see them adopting a gospel response.
I mean, I think the SBC is largely out of step and is quickly becoming irrelevant as an entity. Still, I am thrilled to see them adopting a gospel response.
Okay, I agree with most of your post; the only thing I'm going to address is your statement about "Thus, if you are rich, come to America! If you are poor, you can't or we put many hurdles in your way and limit you severely that it could take years."
The reason I'll take issue with this is because I personally have sponsored Afghans for U.S. citizenship. They were by no means "rich," or "privileged," or otherwise "of higher stature" than their fellow countrymen. The only thing they did differently was put in the effort to work hard, establishing themselves with the U.S. government; and working to do what it took to obtain and submit the correct documentation.
One could argue, it is only geography that allows illegal immigration to be a problem between Mexico and the U.S.
freeatlast
New Member
We are also to obey the law. So if you love Jesus you will turn them in. it all depends on who you love most. Jesus or law breakers.
Paul led Onesimus to the Lord and then sent him back to face his owner. That is the proper response.
Uh...they aren't slaves. And a gospel response is not one that includes drive-by evangelism and a quick exit.
>We are also to obey the law. So if you love Jesus you will turn them in. it all depends on who you love most. Jesus or law breakers.
Note topic of Christians turning people in to the police had been breached.
NT teaches "Who are you to judge another man's servant?" and that Christians have no business taking people to government courts. When you see your fellow Christians speeding of following to close do you follow Jesus' commandments and directions?
Note topic of Christians turning people in to the police had been breached.
NT teaches "Who are you to judge another man's servant?" and that Christians have no business taking people to government courts. When you see your fellow Christians speeding of following to close do you follow Jesus' commandments and directions?
someone already responded that they are not slaves, but Paul also sent him back no longer as a slave but equal to them and was willing to pay everything back that he may have cost the owner. In other words, he had grace on this person but treated him as an equal, not someone deserving our wrath.
Probably fits better for my side than your own.
I do not see where Paul sent him back "no longer a slave" as Paul had no authority to do so. But he was still a slave.
Paul may have recommended he no longer be a slave...Yes, Onesimus was now an equal - but that was in Christ.
It would like Paul telling my Christian boss to treat me like an equal - that would not mean I would become part owner of the bussiness...
The point was he led him to the Lord and then set him in a direction to do that which was both legal and right.
Philemon states:
For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave [3] but more than a slave, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
The encouragement was that he no longer be a slave, and Paul sent him back as equals encouraging him to be treated as equals. While he may still have remained as a slave, Paul was not sending him back as a slave with hopes of his freedom.
So if I offer grace and love toward others I am not loving Jesus? Or if I am wrathful and vindictive toward others, then I love Jesus the right way.
This makes me ill.