When people say the US should not deport illegal immigrants...

[Lamb]

When people say the US should not deport illegal immigrants... and say that because they think it's more Christian. What do you say to them?

I've some people argue that they've committed a crime by entering the country illegal, so we don't owe them anything.

But then they still try to counter that a Christian would care for those people regardless. Even to the expense of our own people?

Your thoughts?

 

[Frankj]

What I say to them is that they should be allowed to sponsor as many of them as they want the way Americans were sponsors of the Vietnamese 'boat people' after the war ended there.

That means they take full responsibility for their care so that they do not end up relying on public funds for their support.

I doubt you'll find many of those 'Christians' that oppose deportations willing to do that, at least not with their own money and resources.

We can't even take care of all of our own adequately with untold numbers of low end workers being homeless or living in extreme poverty, we don't have the resources to take care of the rest of the world coming to our country to be taken care of and remain what they were instead of working to become Americans the way immigrants of the past have.

I also point out what the bible has to say about taking care of your own house first, and what it says about those that do not.

FWIW, I do support giving them whatever we can in their home countries to fix their problems there and make their own countries places the want to live and prosper in.

Just the way I see it.

 

[tango]

When people say the US should not deport illegal immigrants... and say that because they think it's more Christian. What do you say to them?

I've some people argue that they've committed a crime by entering the country illegal, so we don't owe them anything.

But then they still try to counter that a Christian would care for those people regardless. Even to the expense of our own people?

Your thoughts?

It's a tricky one and I think the answer comes down to the question of who a Christian thinks should be funding the care of the people concerned.

Jesus said to look after the poor. The parable of the Good Samaritan showed the Samaritan using his own resources to help the man he found who needed it. Nowhere does it say that we should vote for politicians to demand Someone Else foot the bill for everything we think they should do.


There's also the question of exactly who we should be looking after, and how we should be doing it.

If we should be looking after "the poor", who defines what counts as "poor" and how do we address it? The federal poverty level for a family of 4, for 2025, is an income of $31,200. A family of four getting by with an annual income of $31,995 are below the poverty line and can be "lifted out of poverty" with an annual handout of $6. Yet it's hard to see that $6 achieving anything more than ticking a box - it certainly won't make any meaningful difference to the family.

Sometimes people in extreme poverty need assistance right now. Usually over time what people need is a means to provide for themselves - neverending handouts are only useful in cases where there is a genuine inability to provide for oneself. Should we be expected to house people in their own home, or in shared homes, or in dormitory-style accommodation? How do we balance the need for concepts like human dignity with the so-called benefit trap, where those receiving public assistance are permanently stuck because they can never earn enough to replace what would be lost if they were to work? The benefit trap does a huge disservice to those stuck in it as well as those stuck paying for it. And how much dignity should be preserved, when relying on others to fund your life?

If someone wants to take in an immigrant and provide for them, maybe they should be free to do so. If someone has a huge house with a dozen spare bedrooms and the resources to endlessly fund a dozen immigrant families maybe that should be their choice, as long as there is some fallback to protect everyone else from being stuck with the bills later if the beneficiary decides they no longer wish to continue the arrangement.

 

[Gordon Zhao]

When people say the US should not deport illegal immigrants... and say that because they think it's more Christian. What do you say to them?

I've some people argue that they've committed a crime by entering the country illegal, so we don't owe them anything.

But then they still try to counter that a Christian would care for those people regardless. Even to the expense of our own people?

Your thoughts?

Pope Francis criticized President Trump’s stance on this issue. An average American doesn’t lack physical resources, and we shouldn’t assume that illegal migrants will probably commit other crimes.

 

[Lamb]

Pope Francis criticized President Trump’s stance on this issue. An average American doesn’t lack physical resources, and we shouldn’t assume that illegal migrants will probably commit other crimes.

Should we assume that someone who has committed a crime won't commit others even though he's gotten away with the first one?

 

[Frankj]

Pope Francis or any other Pope that doesn't like our laws on who we allow to reside in our country and who we don't should practice what he preaches and open the Vatican to unfettered immigration and support those who enter without conforming to the laws in place that control it.

The bible tells us to take care of our own house, our own people, first and by allowing this illegal occupation of our country we are failing to take care of our own and taking care of someone else's house first.

When I was young I was once warned to beware of politics masquerading as religion and as I have grown I have come to understand why.

 

[Vindicator]

When people say the US should not deport illegal immigrants... and say that because they think it's more Christian. What do you say to them?

I think the US should have never backed off its standards as far as what was illegal in the first place. It's caused a lot of confusion.

The real question is should more legal immigration be allowed, and that's not a great discussion to be had either because it kind of assumes a stance of "You should let into your country whoever I say because I decide what's right and wrong."

Here is where the topic gets nuanced, however. Depending on who I was speaking with, I would try to soften their hearts against the whole Right Wing/ Left Wing talking points that go round and round and just create division. If they are of the Right wing perspective, I would agree with the argument that what's illegal should be illegal, but that the Hispanics as a rule have done a lot for this country. There are many godly Hispanics who attend my wife's church and many other churches in the United States. They bring their faith with them, and a more godly upbringing, They serve in ministry, and in worship, and they walk in kindness towards others, including towards non-hispanic Americans. They also produce Christian children when both the population growth and Christian numbers in the US would be declining faster without them.

If they are of the Left-leaning persuasion, I would remind them that yes, many are impoverished, and here they are able to make a living so they can support their families back home. But also that it cannot be fair to just enter our country illegally and receive all the benefits and protections we provide when they have not even vowed their American citizenship. What about Muslim terrorists who immediately join sleeper cells? Or people who are simply here on the take, identify with their own nationalities and races, and will never appreciate what we are doing for them but disrespect us all the more? How can a country survive if we simply let anyone through the door because people in other countries are less fortunate?

I would throw a few things out there like that to maybe diffuse the typical arguments a little bit, but I wouldn't stay there long. Just long enough to plant a little seed on maybe seeing things from the other side's perspective, but then leave it at that.

 

[Lamb]

If they are of the Right wing perspective, I would agree with the argument that what's illegal should be illegal, but that the Hispanics as a rule have done a lot for this country.

Why would you lump all right wingers in one group of racists?

 

[Frankj]

I would agree with the argument that what's illegal should be illegal, but that the Hispanics as a rule have done a lot for this country.

Is this conflating being Hispanic with being an illegal? I know 'Hispanics' whose ancestors have been in North America long before there even was a United States.

Blacks too have done much for this country, but being Black is certainly not to be conflated with being illegal either although many Blacks are here illegally from other countries.

Illegal aliens, by definition, are citizens of other countries that have entered the United States illegally, it shouldn't be made a racially defined thing.

FWIW, one of our current major problems with illegal immigrants involves those from India and their overtaking of the trucking industry.

 

[Vindicator]

Why would you lump all right wingers in one group of racists?

I don't LoL. Just an initial reply.

Is this conflating being Hispanic with being an illegal?

No, just that the tenor of the OP seems to be about Hispanic illegals. Unless specified otherwise that's usually the case lately.

FWIW, one of our current major problems with illegal immigrants involves those from India and their overtaking of the trucking industry.

I wouldn't doubt it.

 

[Lamb]

I don't LoL. Just an initial reply.


No, just that the tenor of the OP seems to be about Hispanic illegals. Unless specified otherwise that's usually the case lately.


I wouldn't doubt it.

Hmm...I'm the OP and I don't see anything I've said about Hispanic illegals? From what I've heard about, we have people from all over the world entering illegally. I guess word got around that Biden wouldn't uphold our laws.

 

[tango]

Pope Francis criticized President Trump’s stance on this issue. An average American doesn’t lack physical resources, and we shouldn’t assume that illegal migrants will probably commit other crimes.

What counts as an "average American"?

Quite a lot of Americans do lack resources. How many people do you know who struggle to pay their bills? I have a number of friends who have spoken to me for help balancing a budget and sometimes it's brutal trying to figure out what they can do when the reality is that there just isn't enough money coming in to balance what has to go out. Sometimes they can work extra hours to boost their income but as soon as children are involved the spiralling costs of having someone watch the kids while they are at work means that's not really an option either.

Sometimes people can find a cheaper place to rent but that's not always an option if they have children. Most people need a car to get to work because outside of larger cities there is no public transport. It's surprising how many people are one unexpected bill from a cascade that will push them into homelessness, after which they will struggle to get back on their feet because few landlords want to rent to someone who got evicted for not paying their rent.

 

[Vindicator]

Hmm...I'm the OP and I don't see anything I've said about Hispanic illegals? From what I've heard about, we have people from all over the world entering illegally. I guess word got around that Biden wouldn't uphold our laws.

Ok, well then maybe I was reading in, My apologies. I hear a great deal about it from the Hispanic perspective in particular because I am married to one, but I acknowledge that they are certainly not the only ones being effected by current US policy.

 

[Frankj]

What counts as an "average American"?

Quite a lot of Americans do lack resources. How many people do you know who struggle to pay their bills? I have a number of friends who have spoken to me for help balancing a budget and sometimes it's brutal trying to figure out what they can do when the reality is that there just isn't enough money coming in to balance what has to go out. Sometimes they can work extra hours to boost their income but as soon as children are involved the spiralling costs of having someone watch the kids while they are at work means that's not really an option either.

Sometimes people can find a cheaper place to rent but that's not always an option if they have children. Most people need a car to get to work because outside of larger cities there is no public transport. It's surprising how many people are one unexpected bill from a cascade that will push them into homelessness, after which they will struggle to get back on their feet because few landlords want to rent to someone who got evicted for not paying their rent.

It's interesting to reflect on the minimum wage that was set way back when (1930 something?) with the goal that a man working full time year round would be able to support himself and a wife and child above the poverty line without public assistance (I think this was actually achieved for a short while in the late '60's).

Times have changed, but people's needs have not. Every time I hear about a homeless roundup to solve some encampment problem I always wonder why the effort of getting rid of them, at least from public sight, isn't directed more at making sure there is a productive place available for them instead of just pushing them out of sight somewhere so they won't be noticed as much.

The days of just saying "Go west, young man, go west" are over, there is no 'west' to go to now, no place for an increasingly large number of people to seek out productive and self sufficient lives for themselves.

 

[Lamb]

Ok, well then maybe I was reading in, My apologies. I hear a great deal about it from the Hispanic perspective in particular because I am married to one, but I acknowledge that they are certainly not the only ones being effected by current US policy.

No problem. It's possible you were reading elsewhere and got confused.

 

[tango]

It's interesting to reflect on the minimum wage that was set way back when (1930 something?) with the goal that a man working full time year round would be able to support himself and a wife and child above the poverty line without public assistance (I think this was actually achieved for a short while in the late '60's).

Times have changed, but people's needs have not. Every time I hear about a homeless roundup to solve some encampment problem I always wonder why the effort of getting rid of them, at least from public sight, isn't directed more at making sure there is a productive place available for them instead of just pushing them out of sight somewhere so they won't be noticed as much.

The days of just saying "Go west, young man, go west" are over, there is no 'west' to go to now, no place for an increasingly large number of people to seek out productive and self sufficient lives for themselves.

True, and even when people aren't technically homeless it's terrifying how many people are a single life glitch away from it. When people have a monthly budget that's sufficiently finely balanced that a single problem would tip it into the red they have no security at all. If it's all you can do to pay rent and essential bills, what happens if your child is sick for a few days and you have to take unpaid time off work to look after them? Your pay check is short, so you can't pay a bill, so you get a utility cut off or evicted, and everything cascades from there.

Even things like late fees and NSF charges are just another way those less well off get hammered by fees they can't afford.

It can be remarkably expensive to be poor.