I’m not Sam, but I would like to ask you what time Dinner is. The walls of your home is a sort of border. If I enter without your permission, you are cool with this? What about tomorrow night. and the next? What if I bring friends and family? Still cool?
The Bible tells us as Christians that we are to treat “aleans” with dignity and not mistreat them (Leviticus 19:33-34; Exodus 23:9).
What Scriptura is referring to here is how we treat others who are not from where we are from. It is not referring to policy.
I am a Libertarian and there are many debates on where the border line should be or if borders should be recognized at all.
Some believe the line is your private property line. Others believe City, County, or State boundaries. Some believe the line is a Federal line. And some are closed borders until other things change policy wise first and then they will entertain for a more open border policy. Our last Presidential Candidate was for an Ellis Island approach to immigration.
My point is that this issue is often framed in an emotional manor, which is designed to get you to be politically active so that one team or another can leverage your anger to win more power and control over those they disagree with. So Republicans will paint all individuals coming here as violent criminals, while Democrats view individuals coming here as saints, victims, or future voters ; )
There are valid arguments for not allowing anyone to come here. Let’s say an impoverished Country without medicines contract certain diseases and they bring it here, that is an issue. Let’s say many individuals form a Country who’s preferred system of law is tied to a pervęrted ideology? All they would need to do is get enough individuals to inhabit a certain area and they can elect themselves into office, because they have the numbers to do so. There is a documentary called Wile Wild Country, where a cult did just that.
When it comes to some things, I boundary is at my private-property line. I should be allowed to invite anyone whom I want to my property, but if I do, I should also be held accountable for there well-being. So if they were to starve to death while visiting me, then I should be held accountable. If they commit a violent crime while here, I should be held somewhat accountable for that, since they were visiting under my supervision and request.
Sanctuary Cities, as they are called, draw the line on a city level, but if these individuals commit a violent crime or starve to death, then the City should be held accountable.
With freedom, there needs to be responsibility, otherwise it is not liberty, but libertinism.
Japan has a very strict immigration policy. They want to protect their Japanese culture. Christianity was banned for most of her existence. Only like 13% of their citizens were not born there and those who have been granted citizenship cannot vote in their elections.
We have about half of Americans who believe in assimilation and roughly the other half believe in multiculturalism. And each side demonizes the other. Individuals who believe in assimilation are called “Fascists” or “Christian Nationalists,” while individuals who value multiculturalism are called “Globalists” or “Cultural Marxists.”
I don’t think slinging these insults are helpful to the conversation. What is the answer? In the words of the great Thomas Sowell, in his book A Conflict of Visions, “There are not real solutions, only trade-off’s.”
When you have completely closed borders, you might encounter what Japan is having an issue with; they sell more adult diapers than baby diapers and young people are not pro-creating at a sustainable rate. When you have entirely open borders, you lose your shared culture, may have the spread of disorder and disease. I don’t know where the balance is. But, I do now what God asks of us and that is to treat everyone with human dignity and love whenever we encounter one another.