Mass Immigration Without Assimilation Will Destroy America

00Civilizations grow and survive by overcoming successive challenges and break down when they fail to meet some new challenge according to historian Arnold Toynbee.

With regard to mass immigration and its attendant problems of multiculturalism, Islamization, and globalism,  America and other Western nations face a challenge unique in history: to save ourselves from open-border chaos and cultural destruction without becoming, in our own eyes, “racists,” “mean,” “exclusivist,” and “unchristian.   The challenge we must meet, if we are to save our civilization, is to understand those liberal moral assumptions that have led us into this paralysis. 

When the liberal order was born  it did not appear to be hostile to religion.  Far from attacking or banning religion, liberalism marked out a religiously neutral public space where religious conformity would not be demanded and  the various Protestant denominations, Catholicism and Judaism, were tolerate.  But, as the demand for individual freedom become ever more insistent and far-reaching, the respect accorded religion and religious morality in our public life steadily diminished.  And for the first time in American history, prominent individuals and established political movements became openly atheistic and hostile to religion, seeking, in the name of tolerance, to drive religion out of the public sphere.   The only Christianity tolerated by these liberals is a desiccated Christianity that keeps up the external forms and formula of the faith but no longer adheres to any Christian beliefs distinct from liberalism.

Dr. Lawrence Auster, in his article How Liberal Christianity Promotes Open Borders and One Worldism, writes that once the left had taken control over most of the denominations, they had to convince the conventional Christian community that it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing to make humanity the ultimate focus of religion. This humanistic distortion, that began with the denial of God’s supremacy,  ended with the denial of all things higher than human desire, i.e.  law, morality, culture, nation and even nature itself. 

The denial of higher truth makes all things seem equal which in turn requires an explanation for why things are not actually equal, which in turn leads to a belief in some all-pervading oppression to account for the actually existing inequalities, and oppression is always blamed on the West, or America, or Christianity, or capitalism or the white race, or white men, or the patriarchal family, ad nauseam.  The results of this humanistic distortion resulted in the liberal cult of multiculturalism, the uncritical identification with the Other, whoever or whatever the Other may be.   

In order to support this humanist multicultural nonsense,  the left, tosses  out scripture to convince the “confused” that it is the Christian thing to open our borders, to embrace same-sex marriage, to redistribute wealth because, after all, Jesus was a socialist.  Anyone that actually reads scripture for themselves must realize that the passages of Scripture most often cited for  mass immigration and amnesty plainly do not argue for open borders but rather  reflect  “equal justice under law” principles.  Consider Leviticus 19:33-34: “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. . .” Similarly reads Exodus 22:21: “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”   The  Hebrew word  for “sojourn” means a temporary stay.   A related term is sometimes translated  “stranger.”   The relation of the Hebrews to strangers was regulated by special laws (Deut. 23:3; 24:14-21; 25:5; 26:10-13).  These  sojourners or strangers in the land  were to be given equal justice under the law,  and treated well within certain requirements for religious and civil legal standards.  However, Scriptures indicate that these strangers were to assimilate with the Hebrew culture.   To infer some open-border or mass amnesty mandate from what actually appears in the Scriptures is wrong.

God regarded borders as meaningful and important.  Consider Deuteronomy 32:8: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders. . .”  Ezekiel 47:13-23 details the Promised Land’s boundaries.  Numbers 34:1-15 describes the borders the Lord established for each tribe of Israel.  Deuteronomy 19:14 commands against moving a neighboring tribe’s boundary stone marking a given tribe of Israel’s inheritance in the Promised Land.  Another example appears three months after the Israelites left Egypt.  The base of Mount Sinai was made off-limits (see Exodus 19:12), under penalty of death, until the people had been consecrated.  Resident aliens who had children and settled in Israel (largely because of Israel’s failure to complete the mandate to remove them) were allowed private property in Israel (Ezek. 47:21-23). However, numerous times Israelites are warned against letting the aliens’ pagan practices corrupt God-given moral standards.

Scripture clearly indicates that God charges civil authorities with preserving order, protecting citizens, and punishing wrongdoers.  A prime passage is Romans 13:1-7.  Similar teachings, such as I Peter 2:13-17 and Titus 3:1, urge citizens to obey secular authorities  whether the individuals in charge were personally characterized by godliness or not. The authority God delegates to civil government focused on justice, not mercy, though this is not to say laws should not be tempered by mercy.  Further, standards of justice are not fully moral if they are not accompanied by judgment and punishment.  These two elements (judgment and punishment) are integral, or else justice is not just.

In other words, civil government has been delegated authority to use force because government fulfills the role of protector of a specific body politic and the members of that political society. The reason the sword of justice has been delegated to earthly governments is for protection of a defined set of people who live under a government’s jurisdiction.   It is not power for power’s sake, but power to protect and defend a state’s own people and resources. 

Advocates for illegal immigrants and refugees like to blur moral lines. They offer up illegal aliens who purport to be Christians, yet, wrapping their flaunting of Americas law  in Christian terms stands at odds with the clearer teachings of Scripture.   Forcing oneself on an existing nation is both unjust and unjustifiable.   In other words, illegal immigration is morally wrong.  Illegal  aliens bear moral responsibility for their unlawful actions.

Apologists for illegal aliens who break America’s immigration laws tread on hazardous ground.  Their tactics fall under sobering light from passages such as Isaiah 5:20-21: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight.”

National sovereignty is part of the authority God has delegated to civil authorities. Whatever the immigration laws of a particular nation, determining the policies of how many immigrants to admit and the terms and conditions applying to immigrants are the prerogative of the national body. Each society may set or change its nation’s immigration laws. Those decisions rest within the society, and outsiders have no legitimate voice in that exercise of national sovereignty.

For the open-border crowd,  it is imperative to destroy our traditional way of life, our religious beliefs and our cultural history because only by dividing us can they conquer the U. S.  Multiculturalism is no more than an instrument to further weaken the foundations of our laws, and our Constitution.

Print Friendly

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Unable to load the Are You a Human PlayThru™. Please contact the site owner to report the problem.