Lux Lucet

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

What does a Biblical immigration policy look like? That’s the question I asked myself for years, well before I started writing the current series on immigration, which has now, remarkably, stretched to eighteen installments.

I began writing this series in September 2016, just a couple months before as the US presidential election that had featured immigration as a major issue. Democrat Hillary Clinton told voters, in effect, “you know that whole system of taxpayer subsidized mass immigration / migration / and refugee resettlement?, well, it’s great, it’s wonderful, we need to do more of it and the faster the better. And if you don’t agree with me, you’re irredeemably depolorable.”

Donald Trump, on the other hand, stated that the interests of the American people should be considered first when formulating immigration policy. This is the sort of talk that, on the surface, would seem about as non-controversial as declaring the sun rises in the east, but it sent much of the intellectual, media, and political elite into a paroxysm of outrage.

Much to the shock and chagrin of the movers and shakers, and to the delight of the depolorables, Trump won. In large part, his victory can be attributed to the perceptions by ordinary Americans that he actually took their concerns about immigration policy seriously, rather than unctuously lecture them about how they have a moral obligation to underwrite the costs of mass welfare-based immigration – regardless of how heavy the burden – and then denounce them as hate filled xenophobes for raising even the mildest objection to this arrangement.

Back in that first installment, I mentioned that there were two guiding principles that would govern this study. First, that the Bible commends the idea of the free movement of people. As John Robbins pointed out to an interlocutor during the question and answer session following one of his lectures, “I would [argue for free immigration], because it is not a legitimate function of government to decide where people will live.”

It is important to note, that Robbins take on immigration is quite different from that advocates of mass immigration / migration / refugee resettlement. These men promote a welfare-based system that imposes enormous costs on the citizens of the nation. John Robbins believed that government ought to be restricted, as the Bible tells us, to punishing evil doers and rewarding the good (i.e. passing and enforcing civil laws consistent with the moral law of God).

The second guiding principle of this study pertains to the definition of citizenship. As current immigration law is applied in the US, there is a principle in effect called birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship means that, with few exceptions such as the children of foreign diplomats born in the US, any child born on American soil automatically is considered a US citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents or how they came to be in the US.

Current estimates are that about 400,000 children a year become US citizens in this fashion. As US citizens, they are eligible for the entire panoply of the American welfare state, again, without any regard as to the citizenship status of the parents or how they came to the US in the first place.

It is the view of this author that, considered in light of the Scriptures and what they teach about immigration, birthright citizenship as is practiced in the United States is at odds with the Word of God, represents a gross abuse of the American people, and ought to be ended.

Further, a correct understanding of the Word of God leads us to conclude that US citizenship, or citizenship in any other nation, is properly acquired in one of two ways: 1) by children born to one or both parents who are themselves citizens, and 2) by adults who have taken an oath of citizenship. In the United States, this means swearing an oath of loyalty to the Constitution.

Lord willing, I shall expand on both these ideas over the next few installments of this series. In particular, I shall pay particular attention to Book of Ruth, where I intend to argue that Ruth, a foreigner by birth, became a citizen of Israel by swearing an oath of loyalty to the people and to the covenant God of Israel, illustration both the principle of open immigration and the proper Biblical process of acquiring citizenship.

Following the first post in this series were a number of posts that explored various aspects of the current immigration debate. In this series so far, we have,

• Compared in some detail the immigration platforms of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. That of the former was found entirely wanting, that of the latter, though flawed, did at least offer some positives.
  
• Reviewed what various religious groups teach about immigration. Specifically, we looked at liberal Protestants, conservative Protestants, and the teachings of the Roman Church-State. All in various ways were found to fall short of what the Bible teaches on the subject, and in particular noted the predatory nature of Rome’s immigration stance, something I’ve termed “weaponized immigration,” driven as it is by Rome’s desire to advance its globalist ambitions at the expense of the people of the United States and other independently governed nations.
  
• Considered topics related to immigration such as the problems of refugee resettlement, in particular the resettlement of large numbers of Muslims in Western countries.
  

Before divining into the details of what the Bible has to say about immigration, perhaps it’s worth asking whether a Biblical immigration policy is even possible, or whether this study is simply another example of ivory tower intellectualism that has no chance of being implemented in the “real world.”

While I admit that my arguments from Scripture may seem to be pie in the sky to some, I would ask anyone who would say this to consider what John Robbins said in one of his lectures. As he once put it, “the ivory tower is the control tower of civilization.” Practice is always the practice of some prior theory. If we are ever to solve the nation’s and the West’s immigration problem, we must first understand what the Bible says about immigration and how it relates to the Scriptures’ teaching on politics in general. In other words, just as Christians ought to approach any theological question systematically, so too ought they approach any political question.

If we fail to think Biblically and systematically about immigration, preferring instead to lay hold of seemingly attractive ad hoc solutions, there is a good chance that, not only will we fail to solve the immigration problem in practice, but at the same time we will succeed in bringing reproach on the name of Christ. Neither outcome is acceptable.