Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Immigration Citizensip and the Bible’

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

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

Immigration, long an issue in American politics, has in the past year been moved from the back to the front burner. This is due in no small part to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, who has placed immigration reform at the very center of his platform.

In Trump’s case, the most notable reform proposals are 1) his promise to build a wall along the entire border between the US and Mexico and have Mexico pay for it, and 2) his pledge to step up the deportation of illegal immigrants, that is, to forcibly those individuals who are in the country in violation of US immigration law. You can read his full immigration platform here.

Donald Trump – The Good

On Trump’s campaign website under the heading “Immigration Reform That Will Make America Great Again” are listed “three core principles of real immigration reform.” They are:

  1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.
  2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.
  3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

I would like to being the discussion of Trump’s immigration stance by taking up point number three. For though it is the third “core principle” listed, it is the most noteworthy of the three.

Usually when the subject of immigration comes up, any logical thought is quickly swallowed up in a fog of altruistic sentimentality replete with buzz words such as “nation of immigrants,” “give me your poor,” “the Statue of Liberty” and “Ellis Island.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

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

 

“…America is a dying nation. I tell the Mexicans when I am down in Mexico to keep on having children, and then to take back what we took from them: California, Texas, Arizona, and then to take the rest of the country as well.”

    — Paul Marx, Roman Catholic priest

It would likely come as a surprise to many Americans, even to Evangelicals who really should know better, just how hostile the Roman Church-State is to what they believe is just the common sense concept of national sovereignty.

But in truth, what is widely considered a matter of common sense, “the idea that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers” (“Westphalian sovereignty“, Wikipedia),” is really a product of the Protestant victory in the Thirty Years’ War years war that concluded with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

This Westphalian Order has always been a focus of hatred for the globalists in the Roman Church-State, who work constantly to hasten the day when all the nations of the world bow the knee to the authority of the See of Rome, as had been the case in Europe up until Westphalia.

For proof of this, consider the words of a recent document issued by Rome,

Conditions exist for going definitively beyond a “Westphalian” international order in which States feel the need for cooperation but do not seize the opportunity to integrate their respective sovereignties for the common good of the peoples” (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Towards Reforming Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority).

The problem, as Rome sees it, is that sovereign nations states are too concerned with pursuing their own self interest and are not focused on the “common good.” Now the term “common good” is one of those buzzwords one often finds in Romanist documents. But what does it mean? In short, it is a collectivist fiction of Romanist political theory by which Rome attempts to justify governmental intrusion into the lives and liberty of ordinary people (see paragraphs 1907 and 1908 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church). As John Robbins explains it, “The common good becomes the reason for extensive government intervention into the economy” (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 159).

According to Rome, the common good requires extensive provision by government for the “needs” of the people.

Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1908).

This paragraph, which easily could have been written by Karl Marx, is essentially a call for unlimited government. And since governments, in the eyes of Rome at any rate, are not doing an adequate job on their own of taking from each according to his ability and giving to each according to his need, Rome would like to “go beyond the Westphalian order” and move the nations toward world government, with itself at the very pinnacle of power.

But how does can this be done? How is it possible for Rome to overturn Westphalia and bring back the good old days of the Holy Roman Empire? Broadly speaking, the sovereignty of nation states must by undermined to make way for its New World Order. And one of the most effective ways Rome has for undermining nations states is by encouraging mass immigration/migration, especially into the historic nations of the West.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

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.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts