1. 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!

Southern Baptists, Immigration, and doing the right thing

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Ruiz, Jun 17, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 6 of 7
  1. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    The law is not saying that illegals are not made in God's image, it says 'Be all that you can be. In your own country.' There was a time when we needed thousands of unskilled laborers here. We don't anymore. We have enough of our own.

    And the comparison with slavery doesn't apply. The slaves were already here by no choice of their own. It was moral to give them the rights of all Americans.

    The comparison with abortion does not apply. The child in the womb is already here by no choice of his/her own. We believe it is right to accord them the rights of Americans.

    The undocumented workers are here by their own (illegal) choice.
     
    #101 NiteShift, Jun 18, 2011
  2. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Niteshift,

    Because everyone does it does not make it right (that is a faulty appeal to people).

    The modern anti-immigration movement began shortly before the Civil War and was highlighted by the "Know Nothing" party. In the 1880s is the first time we enacted a policy that excluded people, the Chinese. In the 1920's, we restricted everyone who did not come from the right part of the world. In 1964 we passed an act making socio-economic criteria the basis for immigration instead of purely race, but the same results were expected. I believe the socio-economic regulations are just as immoral as the 1920's law and the 1880's law which restricted people based upon race, we only use socio-economic criteria.

    You mentioned the economic impact. I didn't want to get into it, but here is a link to my previous post on this exact issue. I think you can clearly see that economically immigrants have contributed more than they have taken. The think tank that I am quoting is the Heritage Foundation, a very conservative organization whose conclusion on the economics is that immigrants are good for society. I disagree with their policy on immigration, but there is clearly more benefit than negatives.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1694716&postcount=85
     
    #102 Ruiz, Jun 18, 2011
  3. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Scripturally:
    2 Thess 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you.
    2 Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

    And stretching a little (a lot? however, look at the principle of the statement):
    Matt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits

    Scripture recognizes that there is neither Jew nor Greek; scripture also recognizes that we don't just say, "hey, you're human, so we accept that you're a Christian." It sets out a "litmus test" based on an individual's actions ("fruits of the spirit," works based on faith). The same principle is applied with regard to immigration.

    Is it immoral to question someone who claims to be a Christian if they show no fruits? No works?

    It is not immoral to ask an individual, "what will you contribute to our society if we allow you to become a member?" It is immoral to place a strain on that society by adding members who live off the work of the rest of the society, who do not contribute by providing service, paying taxes, etc.

    By issuing visas and citizenship requirements, there is a "contract" between the society and the individual that they will provide each other certain services.

    So I disagree with you about the immorality of the immigration laws themselves. I will meet you halfway, though: I think there could be great benefit in reviewing Congress' complicated algorithm on how many visas are allotted each year, and determine an appropriate increase.
     
    #103 Don, Jun 18, 2011
  4. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe you are arguing against things I have not said, but are taking a portion of my argument and surmising what I mean.

    I believe our law, the immigration law, is immoral because it limits people based upon socio-economic levels. I do not think you are going the same place with slavery or the life of the unborn the same way I was.

    My premise is that our immigration law is immoral, thus it is not immoral to disobey that law. I made the slavery discussion about the worth of humanity and made immigration about the worth of humanity, not about their perceived worth based upon socio-economic conditions. I based the worth of immigrants, again, by their humanity in comparison to a baby, who has nothing to offer.

    Your statements in saying "They are already here" is a moot point and not one I have made. I was arguing that humans are humans and are made in God's image and should not be judged by socio-economic conditions, which is making us a respector of persons. I don't care if they are already here or just want to come here, I am arguing for the immorality of our current laws.
     
    #104 Ruiz, Jun 18, 2011
  5. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am glad you agree. My basic idea is that we should not limit except if they are a harm to our country (felons, terrorists, etc). Would I support a work permit where you can immigrate only if you can obtain work in the United States first? I think that may be a good compromise and while it is not something I like, I think our businesses would heavily recruit these people (as some do now).
     
    #105 Ruiz, Jun 18, 2011
  6. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Possibly. But it at least indicates that there is no consensus that controlling borders is immoral.


    I appreciate the lesson in history, but it still doesn't address why the U.S. should continue to allow unending waves of immigration, regardless of where they are coming from or what color they are.

    I'm not sure how they can know that unhindered border crossing is clearly a benefit when so much of it's impact is below the radar. Read this link when you get a chance. But your main point is that it's a moral issue, and I responded to that in #101
     
    #106 NiteShift, Jun 18, 2011
  7. John Toppass

    John Toppass Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,080
    Likes Received:
    8
    Immigrants are good for society and the USA and th work force and they do contribute more than they take. Illegal aliens as a group are not good for the economy or the moral fiber of the USA and should be dealt with as felons (I believe it is a felony to come into the USA illegally).

    Lumping immigrants and illegal aliens together is the way liberals cover up the fact that illegal aliens cost billions to support and they virtually do not contribute compared to what they take.

    I am a member of an SBC church and I know the SBC missed it on this one albeit by a slim amount.
     
    #107 John Toppass, Jun 18, 2011
  8. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    John, read the Heritage report. They disagree with your economic conclusions. While they disagree with me in their conclusions, I think they are right when they say the economics are very clear. Heritage was handling both illegal and legal immigration. You can find it here:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1694716&postcount=85
     
    #108 Ruiz, Jun 18, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2011
  9. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    If "be all you can be" is your moral argument, then I am at a loss what to say. Never thought that was going to be used as a moral argument.

    Have a great one.
     
    #109 Ruiz, Jun 18, 2011
  10. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try again.
    Mark 7:27.
     
    #110 NiteShift, Jun 18, 2011
  11. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is your moral statement?
    And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.”

    Are you basing your economic argument on this verse? Did you read the entire context here? Christ still performed the miracle. In fact, he did more than that, he brought the Gentiles into the household of God, people who were not his children he brought into his family. In fact, Romans 11 says that he cutoff the household of Israel to make room for these "dogs" (Gentiles).

    Thus, are you advocating cutting off Americans so that we can have more immigrants? Are you saying that the dead branches in America should be rejected to take in the immigrants?
     
    #111 Ruiz, Jun 18, 2011
  12. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't read all this but here is my opinion:

    Does God just let anyone who wants to enter the kingdom of Heaven or does He expect something out of the ones He lets in?

    It is NOT immoral for the US to restrict citizenship, period. Doesn't matter if those people are from Mexico or Canada. We are a sovereign nation, ruled by the people, and if the people wish to restrict immigration to those who will follow the rules, we have that right.

    The immoral ones are those who won't follow the laws of the land (God didn't say to only follow the laws of the land if the are "moral").

    Send home any who are found here illegally and place strict penalties on employers who employ an illegal.

    My two cents.
     
    #112 menageriekeeper, Jun 18, 2011
  13. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus clearly said that he offered his salvation to his own first. And then offered it to others.

    And you may have notice that the woman asked for a blessing, she didn't take it, didn't demand it. She requested it. How does that square with those who illegally enter into a country not their own and then demand it's benefits?
     
    #113 NiteShift, Jun 18, 2011
  14. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    11,154
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not Sure What You Said, BUT...

    I don't believe you have either a moral or immoral leg to stand on. Just because the SBC says it, endorses it, practices it, doesn't make it right. And there is a great many liberals who liken themselves to conservatives.

    This only tells me that in the world of liberal versus conservatives, you lean in a more conservative direction of liberalism. It's like blowing in the wind and you my brother are bending in the wrong direction when it comes to true conservatism.

    You could be right in your initial statement, but, to most of us who are tired of the illegal immigrant takeover in this country. You are headed in the wrong direction.

    In Mexico, they deport illegal immigrants, and or, put in them in jail for no less than two years. Furthermore, they do not allow illegal immigrants to have access to any of their basic services.

    So why should we be any different than the country from whom a great portion of our illegal immigrants comes???

    Come Ruiz, admit it: You're a liberal in conservative clothing. :laugh:

    Your argument of what is moral versus immoral is the big tip off. Like one responder said. God has rules that keep a great many people out of heaven. So why should this nation be any different when it comes to those who break our laws, and set up house here in a foreign land?

    I say, send them on their way, and wish them well. If they want to be an American, go to the back of the line and take your turn like everyone else. Citizenship is not an entitlement. It is a privilege, and it should be granted to those who follow the laws of this land.

    Now that is morality at its finest. Not to enforce the laws of the land is immoral, and it CHEAPENS US Citizenship! :thumbs:
     
    #114 righteousdude2, Jun 18, 2011
  15. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that because the SBC said it does not make it moral. What I said was that I agreed with their decision and that our immigration policies are immoral. I am not an SBCer, don't care to be an SBCer, and have many issues with SBCers. In my opinion, the SBC is too liberal. When I Pastored in the SBC, I did lead a church from the liberal BGAV to the SBCV, but even this group was not where I am theologically. My biggest problem with the SBC is that I believe they won the war on innerancy, but they have not even addressed the sufficiency of Scripture. As a result, I am not a SBCer because I do not think the conservative resurgence has gone far enough.

    This is a total mis-characterization of me. I am very conservative. I voted for Bush, but was upset with him because of his liberal policies. He was no conservative but a neo-conservative. I have only voted for Pro-life people. I am to the right of Milton Friedman in economics (in the modern definitions of right and left). I am for the parental rights amendment, defining marriage between a man and a woman, and believe government should get out of education. Yet, I take a classical conservative view of immigration, foreign policy, and trade (unlike the neo-conservatives of our modern era). I think Paul Ryan's budget was too liberal and Ronald Reagan was too liberal on many issues, therefore I do not see him as a conservative stalwart most do today. I also hold to the classical view of common law, which I advanced in this argument. Thus, if anything here, the people opposing me are doing so from a more liberal bias than my own.

    In other words, I am not liberal and take the stronger conservative stand than those opposing me.

    As I noted in another post, the "Know Nothing" party was built on the immigration issue and I would oppose them too, they were more "liberal" if you recall. To be frank, I am glad we have immigration and believe it is what makes America great. My wife and I celebrate diversity and enjoy having friends from all over the world. Some of our closest friends are not from America.

    I don't know what you mean by "takeover" our country. But I am glad they are here.

    Because they do such things does not give us an excuse for our immoral laws.

    Nope, sorry. No one who has ever met me would accuse me of being a liberal and some believe I am too conservative. Rather, having graduated from Liberty, when asked by several liberals where I went to school I said, "Don't judge me by where I went to school. I went to Liberty where Falwell is at. Yet, I am nothing like him... he is too liberal for me."

    That was tongue and cheek, but there is some truth in that. Theologically, I believe he gave in too much to common sense moral philosophies as do most in Christianity today.

    THis argument is no surprise to me. Before the Civil War the conservatives in the North, who made the same argument about slavery that I am making about immigration, was accused by the south of being "liberal." They even accused Hodge of liberalism. This is a laugh as you know because Hodge is a major force in history for conservative theology. My theology is very close to Hodge, though I am a Baptist. You see, the South did not have a category for people like Charles Hodge. I borrow much of my arguments from him (and other conservatives). Please tell me you think Charles Hodge was a liberal and I will concede, but then I would wish to know what that makes you.

    No, I am not a liberal but on the opposite end of this spectrum, I hold to what was traditionally conservative views on issues from the common law, immigration, trade, foreign policy, economics, and moral issues.

    The law itself is immoral, thus disobeying the law is not immoral.

    So, now that I have addressed the attacks on me, let's get back to the issues.
     
    #115 Ruiz, Jun 18, 2011
  16. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Niteshift,

    Yes, he went to the Jews first, but Romans 11 says he cast off the Jews for the Gentiles. Aren't we all glad.

    As well, as for demanding things is not my point. My point is that the law itself is immoral.
     
    #116 Ruiz, Jun 18, 2011
  17. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's exactly what I thought!.. That's real Christian compassion there!
     
    #117 tinytim, Jun 18, 2011
  18. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    God has answered the question of immigration in his word..

    Lev 19:33 " 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him.
    Lev 19:34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    He didn't say, legal or illegal..

    Too many Americans are greedy...

    "This is OUR country"
    "They are taking OUR jobs"...

    Whine, whine, whine....

    If you don't like what God said to do, take it up with God.. but we are commanded to treat ALL humans the same!


    With LOVE>.

    And starving them out of the country is sin!..
     
    #118 tinytim, Jun 18, 2011
  19. mandym

    mandym New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Leviticus passage does not apply here. The passage is not dealing with criminals. They have broken the law and avoided proper notification while entering the country. Criminals are in disobedience to God and the laws of the land. No one is against them coming into the country and working. But doing it illegally is the problem.

    Cutting off the money supply is the kinder and more grace filled way to do it. It avoids law enforcement and just allows them to do the right thing on their own with no consequences. You cannot be more graceful to criminals than that.

    Using the word "starving" is great for an emotional appeal but it lacks reality. The criminal aliens have the choice to stay here and find it difficult to provide for themselves as they are here illegally or go home and provide for themselves where they can exist legally.
     
    #119 mandym, Jun 18, 2011
  20. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    The passage doesn't deal with the legality of how the alien got there.. Because God expects us to treat them as one of us once they are here.

    It says "WHEN an Alien lives with you in your land".. you assume it means that all the aliens filled out the proper paper work in Israel.. but God didn't differentiate.. HE just called them Alien.. and commanded them to treat them as native born.. the same applies today.

    They are humans, and as such has human rights that supercede citizenship. The right to live, and work and supply for themselves and their families. All the rights the Bible gives humans they have here in America.

    Americans have forgotten who owns the land.. we don't... God does, and God commands us to treat them the same as natives...

    OH wait.. .I forgot.. we committed genocide against the natives that were here before we came!... ooops my bad.
     
    #120 tinytim, Jun 18, 2011
Page 6 of 7
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...