Lux Lucet

Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Of all the issues roiling Western electorates, immigration may well be the most emotional. Proponents of mass, government subsidized third-world immigration see themselves as compassionate promoters of the social justice and the common good. On the other hand, those who stand in opposition to the immigration policies currently popular among Western elites see their way of life under attack.

Here is the United States, Donald Trump won the Republican presidential nomination largely on the strength of his tough-on-illegal-immigration-stance. Trump has galvanized support by rejecting amnesty for those who have violated US immigration law, promising instead to deport them, especially those who have been convicted of other crimes while in the US. He also has indicated that he wants to make it harder for those in the country illegally to obtain jobs, to significantly restrict Muslim immigration and, most notably of all, to build a wall along the US-Mexico border to stanch the flow of illegal border crossings from Central and South America into the US.

While Trump’s stance has won him widespread support among rank-and-file Republicans, the Republican party leadership, Democrats and the overwhelming majority of those in the mainstream press quickly become apoplectic when it comes to anything Trump related, especially when it comes to his immigration stance. One of the most extreme offenders in this regard is The Huffington Post, which lends a serious and dignified tone to the immigration debate by placing the following paragraph at the bottom of every column it runs about the Republican nominee:

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims – 1.6 billion members of an entire religion – from entering the U.S (Links in the original).

And the HuffPo is hardly alone. According to the New York Times, it is Trump, not the reporters and pundits who write about him, who is responsible for “testing the norms of objectivity in journalism.”

With the recent influx of millions of Muslim immigrants and refugees to Europe, immigration there has proven to be no less a flashpoint than in the US. Reports of mass rapes, mass shootings, suicide bombings and other horrifying acts of terrorism committed by Muslims in several European nations in 2016 alone have created enormous, justified resentment among ordinary citizens in the affected countries.

But just as in the US, while the everyday man on the street is incensed at crime, financial costs, and cultural destruction that has occurred as a result of this unprecedented mass Muslim migration, European leaders remain staunchly committed to keeping the influx of immigrants coming.

In Germany and Sweden, governments have actively covered up the fact that mass rapes and sexual assaults were perpetrated by Muslim migrants. The mainstream press also has been complicit in misleading the people about the identity of the criminals.

In a apparent odd twist, Pope Francis and the Roman Church- State have called for ever more Muslim immigration this past summer, even as jihadists recorded themselves slitting the throat of a catholic priest while he conducted morning mass in a Normandy church.

According to the eyewitness report of a nun present at the murder, the perpetrators – one a 19 year-old Muslim born in France to Algerian parents and the other a former catholic named Maxime Hauchard – told her, “You Christians, you kill us.” The nun also reported that the terrorists, “forced him [the 84-yaer-old priest] to his knees. He wanted to defend himself. And that’s when the tragetdy happened. They recorded themselves. They did a sort of sermon around the altar, in Arabic. It’s a horror.’

The jihadists were shot to death by police as they exited the church shouting “Allahu Akbar.”

But for all that, the pope and other officials of the Roman Church-State steadfastly promote more Muslim immigration into Europe. One German Cardinal went so far as to claim, “The Quran is part of the historic heritage of Europe and the Near East,” a patently false statement, which as Richard Bennett points out, “the Cardinal himself knows.”

With ordinary citizens of European nations now suffering the brunt of bizarre and frightening acts of Islamic terrorism and the obvious indifference to their plight shown by the officials responsible for the mess, it is no surprise that the political situation in Europe has become tense.

According to one report, “German President Joachim Gauck was booed and attacked in the streets of Sebnitz, Saxony after he blurted out the following unbelievable statement, ‘The elites are not the problem, the people are the problem.’ ”

Europe, it would seem, no longer has leaders of the stature of Churchill and de Gaulle to provide wise counsel, but is ruled by contemporary versions of Marie Antoinette.

The Need for Biblical Clarity

Before we can even hope to address the serious, pressing issues of immigration and citizenship we must first set forth a proper method of inquiry.

While there has been no shortage of ink spilt on the subject of immigration, this author has not seem much that is actually based on Scripture. And what writing he has seen on immigration by those claiming the authority of the Bible seems, not so much based on the teachings of Scripture, but rather simply to echo ideas already advanced by secular thinkers with a few Bible verses thrown in for good measure.

But this is not how Christians are to go about the good work of addressing the pressing issue of immigration. We do not seek to dress up the ideas of secular thinkers in Biblical garb, but rather our goal should be to articulate a n approach to immigration based on the propositions of the 66 books of the Bible, the infallible and inerrant Word of God written.

It may seem strange to some to think that the Bible has anything to teach us about immigration. The attitude toward the Bible that prevails today seems to be that while it’s fine for personal devotions and Sunday mornings, when it comes to answering the serious questions in life, we must go to the recognized experts in the various fields.

The Bible was the textbook of early America, as it has been for Christians throughout the centuries. Today, however, it is fashionable and sophisticated to assert that the Bible is not a textbook of biology, or of politics, or of economics, or of whatever discipline the sophisticate happens to be considering. Perhaps, implies the sophisticate, in the ignorant days gone by, the Bible was sufficient for learning, but in our advanced technological age we must turn to other books in order to supplement the Bible. “The Bible is not a textbook of…” is now a cliché that is usually uttered with an air of finality and profundity. The unspoken implication is: Who would be so ignorant or so foolish as to believe that the Bible is a textbook of anything, except, perhaps, of personal piety? (John W. Robbins, Is the Bible a Textbook?)

As with matters of salvation, so it is with matters of politics. The only book, the only textbook we need to correctly answer about immigration and citizenship is the Bible itself.

This is not to say that uninspired writings and comments of strictly human authors are of no value to the immigration question. On the contrary, they can help us in at least two ways. First, they can provide examples of what not to do. If we read a theory of immigration that, followed to its logical conclusion, leads to the destruction of society, we can safely conclude that this is not a path we wish to take. Our job in this case is to spot the foolishness of the argumen,t so as to avoid making the same error.

Second, the words of a sound thinker will tend to agree with Scripture and may serve to bring to the surface what was implicit in the text of the Bible all along. This, of course, is the principle job of the Christian theologian. But even non-Christian authors can speak truth. Their problem is that they can’t prove that their words are true. The difference between a Christian who articulates Scriptural truth and a secular writer who does so is that, in the prior case the Christian author can be said to have knowledge based on the axiom of Scripture, whereas the secular writer has only his opinion, which on his own principles he can never know to be true, even if Christians recognize them as such.

Knowledge is justified true belief. And it is revelation alone found in the propositions and necessary inferences of the 66 books of the Bible alone that proves true or false all the statements of all men. This is what Martin Luther called his Schriftprinzip, or writing principle.

Since the secular writer does not accept the axiom of Scripture, what the Reformers called sola scriptura, he never can say for certain that he has discovered truth.

Immigration and Citizenship: Two Fundamental Principles

The remainder of this series will proceed based upon two simple concepts that are taken from the Scriptures.

First, apart from keeping out criminals, there is no Biblical basis for governments either to restrict or subsidize immigration.

This principle is taken in part from a statement made by John Robbins on immigration as part of a Question and Answer session at the end of one of his lectures. Here’s the back and forth between Robbins and an audience member as best as I’ve been able to transcribe it.

Audience member: (Hard to understand question) It sounds like audience member asked John to say a word or two about immigration.

John Robbins: Immigration. Well, I agree. If you say we should not restrict immigration, then we can keep out criminals because they are evil doers. But other than that, yes, I agree entirely that there should be no restrictions on immigration.

Audience member: I think there should be lots of restrictions on immigration. I think that free immigration is an assault on a nation state. It makes the borders permeable. It subverts one of the key functions of a nation state. I’m not arguing with (seems to mean “arguing for”) free immigration at all.

John Robbins: I’m sorry. I misunderstood you. The gentleman is not arguing for free immigration. I would, because it is not a legitimate function of government to decide where people will live. If I can put it that way (John Robbins, The Educational Establishment versus Civilization, beginning at the 25:32 mark).

This was a bit shocking to me the first time I heard it. Seeing some of the destructive effects of mass subsidized immigration on this country, I was of the opinion, much as the audience member in the exchange above, that there should be lots of restrictions on immigration. But I believe Robbins was correct in what he said. And this is the basis for the first part of my first principle of immigration, that governments ought not be in the business of restricting immigration apart from keeping out criminals. Perhaps one could argue that this should be extended to those who have infectious diseases or have no means of supporting themselves.

The second part of my first principle – governments should not subsidize immigration – also is taken from the Bible’s teaching about the role of government. John Robbins identified two functions of government: 1) the punishment of evil doers, and 2) the praise of the good. Government has no Biblical warrant to set up a welfare state for the purpose of taking money from one person and giving it to another in the form of “entitlements.” The entitlements due to immigrants is the same as to citizens themselves, zero.

Second, national citizenship should be granted based upon criteria similar to what is articulated by the Westminster Standards for determining membership in the visible church. According to the Westminster Larger Catechism, the visible church consists of 1) Adults who make a profession of faith in Christ, and 2) infants of either both, or but one, parent who makes such a profession. For purposes of national citizenship, these principles can be restated as: The citizens of a nation consist of, 1) Adults who have taken an oath of citizenship, and 2) minor children of both, or but one, parent who has taken such an oath.

What’s Next?

For the remainder of this study, I plan, Lord willing, to analyze the West’s current immigration problems in light of the two principles stated above, first by looking at some of the erroneous ideas that have led to the present mess, and, second, by proposing Biblical solutions based on these principles.

To be continued…