The latest hub-bub nationally (and maybe globally) is POTUS Trump's EO to suspend immigration for the next 90/120 days. See actual Executive Order here.https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
Media is calling the EO a "Muslim ban," but it's not a ban and its not targeting Muslims. Seven nations have been specified per a statute implemented by Obama, and these seven nations, while predominantly Muslim, have other peoples residing within them. Most notable are the Christians being persecuted to annihilation in Syria. (Syria is on the list of seven, but Trump has already stated he will be prioritizing the admission of those persecuted for their faith.)
Other nations could be added to the list. Or a new list could be created. Or the list could be eradicated. It all depends upon how we assess their threat to our sovereignty. What is true right now is that the list that is being used is one that Obama put together, and it was formed because these nations were assessed as a threat to our nation.
Another point to note is that every president in modern history (going back to Eisenhower?) (see this article https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2014/10/06/98321/by-the-numbers-every-president-since-eisenhower-has-taken-executive-action-on-immigration/ which states:
There are many non-Christians who try to tell Christians how to obey Christ. They attempt to interpret Scriptures for us or even who Christ really is and what He would do. However, they know nothing of worth on what discipleship to Christ is once they have rejected Christ. They have rejected the Truth of Love fully-revealed in Christ's Person. Christ IS the message. And it is by the Grace and Presence of the Holy Spirit that we Christians know Christ and are sustained in Him.
However, that is also why we Christians need to pray before, during, and after everything and in relation to everyone. May the Lord help me, grace me, with an open heart to Him. It is His Love that empowers me to love others in the face of their condemnation, hatred, rebellion, chaos, ignorance, arrogance, all that would deny Christ's sovereignty.
Specifically as regards what stance/policy I believe the USA should have in relation to refugees? America still stands as a beacon of light welcoming the "tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free." She welcomes those who want and embrace freedom, freedom for all, the freedom that respects the equal rights for all: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She doesn't claim to welcome those who would strive to destroy her. She claims to be a haven of freedom and this is presented within a frame-work of safety: first and foremost the safety of governance by law. Freedom within safety is a paradoxical burden she has birthed and borne with pride and humility from the very beginning. She may not have ever perfected the balance of these values, but the desire and attempt to provide a safe have for all who genuinely seek to live in a free Republic is not only a reasonable ideal; it is the only logical or sane goal inasmuch as a haven can be provided only if it is a safe space. So, for America to secure her borders is not in opposition to welcoming immigrants and refugees; it is an essential structural part of the paradigm that allows her to exist in order to fulfill this hospitality.
As for the "vetting process"? I don't know all the details of the existing policy and current practice, but my opinion on how to create and sustain an effective vetting process would always include constant improvement to it! The threats change so the defense has to be responsive to those changes, or better yet, ahead of them. Those who want to harm America or Americans are not stupid and they do not rest. They are fully committed to their mission of destruction. So we have to be smarter, more vigilant, and unwaveringly committed to sustaining and protecting our borders, our nation, our culture.
Additionally, I am in favor of secure borders because I see it as one of the PEACEFUL measures that precludes war. Borders or definitions of entities must be respected at every level of human existence: starting with the individual person, the family, the local neighborhood/ village/ town/ city, the state, the nation, etc. I believe the principle of subsidiarity in governance is the best model for civilization and is fully in harmony with Christ's Teaching on how to treat one another, how to abide in peace.
If nations were to lose their right to define themselves and their cultures, if we were to accept a globalized government and culture, we would not have greater peace and freedom; we would have war and oppression everywhere. And, God forbid, if a faux-peace were to come, it would be through the dominance of the most violent bullies, murderers, dictators.
Some might try to compare the values of and attempt toward secular globalization to Christian's concept of Christ's Kingdom. However these two paradigms are diametrically opposed. While Christian's do indeed hope for the time when Christ will reign, we know this will only come about when Christ reigns in every heart, and the way Christ comes into the heart is through His Grace and the heart's free acceptance. Christ honors boundaries! Christ honors the will of the person. Christ "knocks at the door" of our heart; He doesn't destroy the heart or break down the door. He knocks. And He waits. When we open ourselves to Him, He also invites us into His Life.
Christ's reign has already begun because it is not dependent upon force; it is powered by Love, freely given, freely accepted. This is a completely different MO as compared to a secular globalized government and culture. The only way for governments of the world to approach or approximate the model of God's Kingdom is to honor the Person in each individual, the Family as ordered by the Creator, the local society, the state, the nation, and in that order.
So, back to immigration? Yes, individuals and peoples will sometimes need to immigrate. And sometimes nations will persecute or oppress their own citizens and thus produce refugees, and yes America will hopefully still be around to receive them. But America can only do that if she remains America, and to do that she must secure and manage her borders. The issue today as presented by many would seem to be: are we willing to help the refugee or not? But that is a false presentation of the challenge facing us. The reality is HOW can we BEST preserve and sustain a Republic that can serve those who genuinely seek to live within her borders.
When opponents of Trump concede that yes, this is really the issue, they then ask what is wrong with the current vetting, isn't it already good enough? I believe the fact that we are constantly battling terrorists' attempts to attack us on American soil is reason enough to constantly improve and thus, by necessity, periodically update, our policies and procedures. Sadly, we are at war. But safe-guarding borders is one of the most peaceful ways to resolve conflict or at least to establish a stability in which other issues that need to be addressed can be addressed.
As the title suggests, this is my off-the-cuff first-attempt to respond to one of today's issues. It is a first draft. I hope to add more, especially footnotes to outside sources, later.
Media is calling the EO a "Muslim ban," but it's not a ban and its not targeting Muslims. Seven nations have been specified per a statute implemented by Obama, and these seven nations, while predominantly Muslim, have other peoples residing within them. Most notable are the Christians being persecuted to annihilation in Syria. (Syria is on the list of seven, but Trump has already stated he will be prioritizing the admission of those persecuted for their faith.)
Other nations could be added to the list. Or a new list could be created. Or the list could be eradicated. It all depends upon how we assess their threat to our sovereignty. What is true right now is that the list that is being used is one that Obama put together, and it was formed because these nations were assessed as a threat to our nation.
Another point to note is that every president in modern history (going back to Eisenhower?) (see this article https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2014/10/06/98321/by-the-numbers-every-president-since-eisenhower-has-taken-executive-action-on-immigration/ which states:
39: The number of times U.S. presidents have taken executive action from 1956 through the present.
11: The number of U.S. presidents who have taken executive action on immigration. Every single president since President Eisenhower, regardless of political party, has used administrative action to shape immigration policy.)
has suspended immigration from time to time. (See also this timeline.) It is not illegal for a POTUS to do this. I know that legality doesn't necessarily make something right or ethical or moral, but those who would argue that Trump's EO is illegal are simply wrong.
There are many non-Christians who try to tell Christians how to obey Christ. They attempt to interpret Scriptures for us or even who Christ really is and what He would do. However, they know nothing of worth on what discipleship to Christ is once they have rejected Christ. They have rejected the Truth of Love fully-revealed in Christ's Person. Christ IS the message. And it is by the Grace and Presence of the Holy Spirit that we Christians know Christ and are sustained in Him.
However, that is also why we Christians need to pray before, during, and after everything and in relation to everyone. May the Lord help me, grace me, with an open heart to Him. It is His Love that empowers me to love others in the face of their condemnation, hatred, rebellion, chaos, ignorance, arrogance, all that would deny Christ's sovereignty.
Specifically as regards what stance/policy I believe the USA should have in relation to refugees? America still stands as a beacon of light welcoming the "tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free." She welcomes those who want and embrace freedom, freedom for all, the freedom that respects the equal rights for all: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She doesn't claim to welcome those who would strive to destroy her. She claims to be a haven of freedom and this is presented within a frame-work of safety: first and foremost the safety of governance by law. Freedom within safety is a paradoxical burden she has birthed and borne with pride and humility from the very beginning. She may not have ever perfected the balance of these values, but the desire and attempt to provide a safe have for all who genuinely seek to live in a free Republic is not only a reasonable ideal; it is the only logical or sane goal inasmuch as a haven can be provided only if it is a safe space. So, for America to secure her borders is not in opposition to welcoming immigrants and refugees; it is an essential structural part of the paradigm that allows her to exist in order to fulfill this hospitality.
As for the "vetting process"? I don't know all the details of the existing policy and current practice, but my opinion on how to create and sustain an effective vetting process would always include constant improvement to it! The threats change so the defense has to be responsive to those changes, or better yet, ahead of them. Those who want to harm America or Americans are not stupid and they do not rest. They are fully committed to their mission of destruction. So we have to be smarter, more vigilant, and unwaveringly committed to sustaining and protecting our borders, our nation, our culture.
Additionally, I am in favor of secure borders because I see it as one of the PEACEFUL measures that precludes war. Borders or definitions of entities must be respected at every level of human existence: starting with the individual person, the family, the local neighborhood/ village/ town/ city, the state, the nation, etc. I believe the principle of subsidiarity in governance is the best model for civilization and is fully in harmony with Christ's Teaching on how to treat one another, how to abide in peace.
If nations were to lose their right to define themselves and their cultures, if we were to accept a globalized government and culture, we would not have greater peace and freedom; we would have war and oppression everywhere. And, God forbid, if a faux-peace were to come, it would be through the dominance of the most violent bullies, murderers, dictators.
Some might try to compare the values of and attempt toward secular globalization to Christian's concept of Christ's Kingdom. However these two paradigms are diametrically opposed. While Christian's do indeed hope for the time when Christ will reign, we know this will only come about when Christ reigns in every heart, and the way Christ comes into the heart is through His Grace and the heart's free acceptance. Christ honors boundaries! Christ honors the will of the person. Christ "knocks at the door" of our heart; He doesn't destroy the heart or break down the door. He knocks. And He waits. When we open ourselves to Him, He also invites us into His Life.
Christ's reign has already begun because it is not dependent upon force; it is powered by Love, freely given, freely accepted. This is a completely different MO as compared to a secular globalized government and culture. The only way for governments of the world to approach or approximate the model of God's Kingdom is to honor the Person in each individual, the Family as ordered by the Creator, the local society, the state, the nation, and in that order.
So, back to immigration? Yes, individuals and peoples will sometimes need to immigrate. And sometimes nations will persecute or oppress their own citizens and thus produce refugees, and yes America will hopefully still be around to receive them. But America can only do that if she remains America, and to do that she must secure and manage her borders. The issue today as presented by many would seem to be: are we willing to help the refugee or not? But that is a false presentation of the challenge facing us. The reality is HOW can we BEST preserve and sustain a Republic that can serve those who genuinely seek to live within her borders.
When opponents of Trump concede that yes, this is really the issue, they then ask what is wrong with the current vetting, isn't it already good enough? I believe the fact that we are constantly battling terrorists' attempts to attack us on American soil is reason enough to constantly improve and thus, by necessity, periodically update, our policies and procedures. Sadly, we are at war. But safe-guarding borders is one of the most peaceful ways to resolve conflict or at least to establish a stability in which other issues that need to be addressed can be addressed.
As the title suggests, this is my off-the-cuff first-attempt to respond to one of today's issues. It is a first draft. I hope to add more, especially footnotes to outside sources, later.
No comments:
Post a Comment