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.