Lux Lucet

“A wall is an immorality. It’s not who we are as a nation.”

– Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

“He [Donald Trump] has made clear he will hold parts of the government hostage for a petty campaign pledge — that’s all it is.”

– Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

Another post on immigration. Can you believe it?

Contrary to what it may seem it’s really not my intention to turn Lux Lucet into a full time immigration blog. There are other things going on in the world that deserve attention, a fact of which I am fully aware. And yet I find myself time and again drawn to write about this topic. So just why is that? Why would I focus on immigration as opposed to some other, worthwhile topic such as foreign policy, a refutation of feminism or the ongoing economic problems of the United States,

In the first place there’s the matter of immigration’s intersectionality. Yes, I’m stealing a term from the feminists here. But in spite of the its rotten origin, it’s not a bad way to describe a topic that brings together so many different issues. The topic of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement is exceedingly broad. Depending on the focus, economics may be at the forefront. At another time, politics. Then there’s geopolitics or international relations. Then a matter of supreme importance, the longstanding conflict between Protestantism and Romanism, of which conflict between the Protestant Westphalian World Order and the Romanist New World Order is but one aspect.

In the second place, immigration is a topic crying out for sound, Biblical commentary. Very little has been written in recent years by Protestants on immigration. And what little has been written is, in general, of very low quality. For the most part, instead of actually looking at what the Bible says about immigration, Protestants have been content to let Roman Catholic scholars do their thinking for them. As a result, most “Evangelical” commentary on immigration sounds as if it could have been written by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). This disgraceful situation must needs be rectified. My writings on immigration are my own small contribution to this end.

Third, immigration has been weaponized by the globalists, and poses a serious threat to the continued existence of the independent nation states of the world, first and foremost, the ancient nations of the West. Mass, taxpayer subsidized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement is the globalists’ sledgehammer which they intend to use to break the historic nations of the West and to roll the shattered remnants into their hoped for, world spanning superstate. God approves of nations, for he formed them with his own hand. As Paul said in his Mars Hill sermon, “He [God] has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on tall the face of the earth.” And why did God do this? Paul does not leave us in the dark. He said, “so that they [the nations of men] should seek the Lord.” But the globalists? They want to drag us all back to wicked Babel.

The fourth reason I’d give you for spending so much time on immigration is that, quite simply, I find the topic endlessly fascinating. Why that is, I can’t tell you other than to say that immigration commentary is a work to which God has called me. I had a conversation with a Clarkian friend last week, who reminded me of the important point that it is Christ himself who is our only teacher. That was the central point of Augustine’s treatise De Magistro,
On the Teacher. What we learn, ultimately, isn’t up to us. It’s up to Christ who teaches each man what he wants him to know. My interest in, and knowledge of, the immigration issue is, in the final analysis, what Christ has taught me from his Word.

One word of caution is warranted here. Lest anyone suppose that I’m boasting when I say Christ has taught me, I make no claims for myself that are not true of everyone else. Whatever any of us knows, he knows because Christ has taught him. As John notes in the first chapter of his Gospel, “Christ is the light who lightens every man coming into the world.” If you know something, if you have a gift or a talent for something and take delight in it – whether than gift is academic, athletic, artistic, skill in some trade, etc. – it is Christ who gave that to you.

So there you have it, the reasons why I write so much on immigration.

Now I told you all that, just so I could have a good excuse to tell you my thoughts on the Wall, the Donald and the Democrats. So let’s have at it.

Is the Wall Immoral?

As the quote from Nancy Pelosi at the top of this post shows, her current stance is that the wall is, in itself, unequivocally immoral. Sen. Chuck Schumer has called the wall a “petty campaign pledge” even though he himself is on record as supporting a physical barrier along the US / Mexico border. Not only did Schumer support a physical barrier – call it a fence, a wall or what have you – in 2006, so did Democratic Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. Speaking of a bill to fund a 700 mile stretch of wall/fence in 2006, Obama said it would “certainly do some good” and “help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.”

So were Obama, Biden Clinton and Schumer taking an immoral stance in 2006? Some have tried to argue that the 2006 Senate bill was to fund a border fence, thus freeing them from moral guilt. Apparently, we’re to believe that a border fence is A-Okay, but a border wall is of the Devil.

This line of reasoning seems as bit hard to swallow for at least two reasons. First, the point to both the wall and the fence is the same: keep people from illegally coming into the United States through our southern border. The Dems need to explain how using a fence for this purpose is righteous, just and good, while using a wall is horrible, no good and immoral.

Second, the Democrats’ opposition to Trump’s border wall proposal has never been couched in terms of a fence v. a wall. Their opposition to the wall is that, well, they never quite get around to explaining why it’s wrong, it’s just, apparently, self evidently bad.

But while the Dems never quite articulate why the wall is wrong, the most reasonable guess, in my opinion, is that it will cut off the flow of new Democratic voters who will cast the votes for socialism that Americans won’t cast. In other words, the Democrats are importing a constituency while cynically playing the role of humanitarian.

But what does the Bible have to say about the wall? Does the Bible condemn it? The answer is no, it does not. Why do I say this? As I noted above, the globalists – here I’m talking about the Antichrist Pope and the Roman Church-State generally, together with secular globalists such as the UN and George Soros – have weaponized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement for the purpose of breaking nations and realizing their wicked vision of establishing a world superstate. In other words, the US and other nations find themselves state of war with the globalists. But this war is not one fought with armies and bullets. It’s one fought with mass, taxpayer subsidized migration.

But the war fought with migrants is more subtle than one fought with bullets. When an army invades another country, destroys is cities, pillages its wealth and kills and subjugates its people, the state of hostilities is very clear. But when masses of migrants enter a country against the will of the people, eat up their substance, turn their cities into no-go zones and commit outrageous acts of violence against them, really just how different is this state of affairs from a war fought with armies?

If one accepts my premise that the globalists use of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement is war, just by a different name and by different means, then it is appropriate for people to call on their governments to take appropriate countermeasures to put a stop to the predations.

One of the principals of Christian warfare is that a just war is one conduced for defensive purposes only. And what is a wall but a defensive measure? A wall does no violence to the innocent. A wall is not a means of attack. A wall is not a means of plundering one’s neighbor. Rather, it is a way to protect what is yours.

In short, there is no prohibition in Scripture against a border wall. Civil government is charged with the task of punishing those who seek to do evil and praising the good. A border wall punishes those who seek to violate American immigration law and protects those who seek to obey it. Further, it provides some measure of defense for the American people against migrant caravan invasions.

Contrary to Nancy Pelosi, a border wall is not immoral.

A 14th Century Solution to a 21st Century Problem?

“We can’t come in with the new administration,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas in a recent interview with Roll Call, “and have a very simplistic view that you have a 14h century solution [the wall] to a 21st century problem.”

Cuellar’s aphorism is rather catchy. It has a certain ring of truth, or at least appeal to those of us in the current day. After all, who wants to line up and defend the 14th century?

Cuellar would have you believe that modern high tech, things such as balloons, sensors and watch towers [hey, weren’t watch towers around long before the 14th century?] would better serve to protect America’s southern border.

Now I have no objection to using modern technology to help solve problems, but it seems that Cuellar’s rejection of the wall simply because it’s old tech is just a little bit hasty.

As President Trump recently commented, “They say a wall is medieval. Well, a wheel is older than a wall. And I looked, and every single car out there, even the really expensive ones that the Secret Service uses – and believe me they are expensive – I said, ‘Do they all have wheels?’ ‘Yes,’ ‘Oh. I thought it was medieval.’ ”

Now one could argue whether Trump’s assertion that wheels predate walls is accurate, but his main point is entirely sound: Lots of things we use all the time were invented long ago, yet we still find them useful. Levers have been around a long time, do we not use levers, or have they become useless and out of date? Fire’s been around a long time, but most of us would say that it’s still pretty useful. What about fishing nets. Peter and John used them in the 1st century, as doubtless fishermen did long before their time. Are fishing nets useless? One easily could multiply examples, but I think you get the point.

What this author finds fascinating about Trump’s argument is the reaction to it from the press. Michelle Mark, writing in Business Insider, commented, “President Donald Trump drew a bizarre analogy during his trip to the border in McAllen, Texas, on Thursday, likening a border wall to ancient invention of the wheel and saying wheels are effective and still commonly used in modern times.”

But while Mark called Trump’s analogy “bizarre,” nowhere did she explain to the reader why this was so.

In truth, Trump’s argument was a very effective ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is not, as many suppose, about insulting someone. That’s an ad hominem abusive argument.

An ad hominem argument is where one takes his opponents premise and draws from it the proper conclusion, opposite that which the one who made the original assertion intended. It’s a way of embarrassing one’s opponent and a logically sound technique.

The underlying assumption of Cuellar’s statement is that old technology, as represented by the wall, have been superseded by all the whiz bang 21st century tech we see all around us. Trump’s pointing out that the wheel is old technology but still useful in the 21st century, as I’m sure Cuellar would admit, effectively exposes Cuellar’s objection as fallacious.

This is not bizarre reasoning, as Michelle Mark would have you believe, but rather a logically sound argument on Trump’s part.  While his ad hominem doesn’t itself prove the wall is a good idea, it does effectively dispose of Cuellar’s silly argument.

(To be continued…)