|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Ethics of national boundaries
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
This is key to defining a position on the legitimacy of controlling who and how many non-nationals can come to reside in a country.
Some, a minority I suspect, believe that no nation owns rights to territory and that any restriction on immigrants are anti-christian. It looks like Giles Fraser is of this view based on proof-texts taken out of the OT.
Most christians believe that a nation does have rights and that it is not per se wrong to limit entry to a country.
In a recent article, Matthew Paris says that, to his disappointment, Jesus' teaching offers no guidance. I know of none, and SFAIK the issue of the legitimacy and rights of nation states is not addressed.
What do shipmates think? And is there view based on specifically christian considerations, or the sort of compassionate common sense which could be equally be find in people of any/no religion?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Let's say some serial rapist finishes a ten-year sentence in his homeland, and then applies to emigrate to yours. Do you think the government has a right to review his record, and then say "Ah, no, this isn't the kind of guy we want moving here."
If you answer "yes" to that question, then that's all you need to do to know whether or not you believe in national boundaries.
[ 18. September 2015, 18:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Some, a minority I suspect, believe that no nation owns rights to territory and that any restriction on immigrants are anti-christian. It looks like Giles Fraser is of this view based on proof-texts taken out of the OT.
No, technically speaking, the God of the OT didn't prevent, for example, the residents of Sodom from entering other places. He just killed every single one of them before they even had a chance to pack.
Flippancy aside, the point is, regardless of what a few proof-texts might indicate, it's pretty clear that the Old Testament does not endorse the general worldview underlying the contemporary open-borders movement.
[ 18. September 2015, 18:40: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Stetson:
I don't think taking the case of serious criminals gets at the issue.
Maybe I should rephrase. Does a nation have the right to refuse entry without giving any grounds? Like is the case with personal dwellings, where I have the right to deny someone the right to stay in my house without having to give a justification?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Maybe I should rephrase. Does a nation have the right to refuse entry without giving any grounds? Like is the case with personal dwellings, where I have the right to deny someone the right to stay in my house without having to give a justification?
Okay, then let me answer in two parts...
Yes, a nation, like a home-dweller, has the right to refuse anyone they want, on whatever basis they want.
However, just as I would not want to be married to someone who wants to forbid entry to our home on the basis of some wacked-out, arbitrary criteria(eg. shoe size), nor would I want to be a citizen of a country that does the same.
So, I would say that a government has an obligation to listen to those among its citizens who want a more open immigration policy. It has no obligation to listen to the opinions of non-citizens who want to move there.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
And here's a more concrete example...
As a condition of my being allowed to live in the Republic Of Korea, I have to submit to a drug-test every time I want to renew my teaching contract.
Now, I happen to think that this policy is xenophobic(Korean teachers are not required to submit to drug tests), and ineffective(they only test you once a year, usually after you've arrived from outside the country, so there's nothing to stop you from doing drugs once you're here).
And, if I were a Korean, I might raise a ruckus about this policy, as the government is, at least in theory, supposed to listen to my concerns.
But the government has no obligation to listen to my complaints as a foreigner. If I consider the policy unbearable, I am free to return to my homeland.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Stetson:
I don't think taking the case of serious criminals gets at the issue.
Maybe I should rephrase. Does a nation have the right to refuse entry without giving any grounds? Like is the case with personal dwellings, where I have the right to deny someone the right to stay in my house without having to give a justification?
Saying "does a nation have the right" immediately forces the question of "rights from whom?" If you mean under international law, there is no such beastie capable of promulgating and enforcing this kind of thing. If you mean in the nation's own opinion, well, duh. The only other option is "in the eyes of God, who made us and retains authority over us" and that's going to lead you straight into theology (and the question of which god, exactly, we are believing in).
It might be better to frame this in terms of ethics, as there is a core morality which 99% of the world agrees with, no matter how we yowl about the details of its outworking.
And the key issue IMHO is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or for the Christian, "Whatever you have done to the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me." That argues very strongly for taking in as many refugees (political, economic, famine, medical, domestic abuse) as your country can reasonably carry--which question is one for the economists and other practical type people. But the moral imperative is there. Help them out.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Stetson:
I don't think taking the case of serious criminals gets at the issue.
Oh I think it does. Why should the occupants of the serial rapist's home nation have to put up with him living there? Don't they have the same right to not have him as we do? If you answer "yes" then you have to allow him to move elsewhere.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
regardless of what a few proof-texts might indicate, it's pretty clear that the Old Testament does not endorse the general worldview underlying the contemporary open-borders movement.
Must have been a bummer for poor old Abram. Certain he'd heard God tell him to leave his home for a new land, only to get stuck behind the razor-wire on the border.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
regardless of what a few proof-texts might indicate, it's pretty clear that the Old Testament does not endorse the general worldview underlying the contemporary open-borders movement.
Must have been a bummer for poor old Abram. Certain he'd heard God tell him to leave his home for a new land, only to get stuck behind the razor-wire on the border.
Or for Joseph's brothers. Or the rest of the Hebrews. Or the infant Jesus and his family.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Stetson:
I don't think taking the case of serious criminals gets at the issue.
Oh I think it does. Why should the occupants of the serial rapist's home nation have to put up with him living there? Don't they have the same right to not have him as we do? If you answer "yes" then you have to allow him to move elsewhere.
But elsewhere has a say in whether or not they accept him.
And, I believe several countries have laws preventing such deportations.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
There have always been refugees/migrants, and boundaries used to be much more fluid than they've become (at least until this recent crisis). However, today's refugees seem to have much higher expectations of what the rich West can offer them, and it's hard to see how those expectations could be fulfilled if the borders were entirely open.
We'd have to reduce the welfare state significantly, and also be prepared for lower wages at the bottom (and maybe even in the middle) of the labour market. And that's not to mention the potentially rapid rate of cultural transformation.
I don't think any British government could ever bring itself to be honest about these issues, or indeed to discuss the possibility of open borders at all. It would all operate under a thick layer of obfuscation.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Most christians believe that a nation does have rights and that it is not per se wrong to limit entry to a country.
In a recent article, Matthew Paris says that, to his disappointment, Jesus' teaching offers no guidance.
I'm not sure it's true that "most" Christians believe it's not wrong to limit entry to a country. I'm sure it varies greatly from country to country, denomination to denomination. I'd want to see some stats before assuming this to be true. Not that it matters, of course. Christianity is not a democracy.
What I would dispute though is the statement that Jesus' teaching offers no guidance. As has been noted already, the OT gives abundant and specific guidance, with a strong and consistent record of commands to show hospitality for the "alien among you." Verses like these seem pretty unequivocal:
quote:
Ex. 22:21 “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Ex. 23:9 “Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.
By Jesus' time, Israel is an occupied nation so it's not really up to them who stays and who goes, so you don't see the same sort of specific references to treatment of aliens or refugees. But, as Lamb Chopped noted, every aspect of Jesus' consistent teaching on "loving your neighbor"-- which he goes out of his way to define as "outsiders" (Samaritans and Romans)-- seems to support the clear teaching of the OT on showing hospitality to aliens.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think any British government could ever bring itself to be honest about these issues, or indeed to discuss the possibility of open borders at all. It would all operate under a thick layer of obfuscation.
Name a country that will be completely honest?
The honest answer is that there are practical limitations on how many immigrants any one country can take in, even if they were willing to take everyone they could.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
My grandmother entered Canada in March 1942 with a German passport complete with swastika in the company of my grandfather who had a Dutch passport with the children including my father with no documents. They had previously fled Berlin in 1936 from the Hitler madness and in 1941/2 from the Pacific war. If not for open borders and great understanding, they would have likely been killed in one place or another. This was in effing wartime and they were welcomed.
I am having grave grave problems and bad dreams along with my 88 year father about the mistreatment by exlusion we are seeing on the telly. We either need to give them succour or give them poison, may father said. Open our hearts and borders.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Stetson:
I don't think taking the case of serious criminals gets at the issue.
Oh I think it does. Why should the occupants of the serial rapist's home nation have to put up with him living there? Don't they have the same right to not have him as we do? If you answer "yes" then you have to allow him to move elsewhere.
But elsewhere has a say in whether or not they accept him.
And, I believe several countries have laws preventing such deportations.
I'm not talking about deportation. I'm talking about why people in one country have the right to condemn people of another country to suffer that which they are not themselves prepared to suffer.
Whether it's lack of jobs and infrastructure; murderous dictators; or serial rapists. Controlling our borders just means that we think "someone else" should sort out these problems because we don't want to face them.
[edit for spelling boarders vs borders is a bit apt on a ship]
[ 19. September 2015, 07:10: Message edited by: Humble Servant ]
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We'd have to reduce the welfare state significantly, and also be prepared for lower wages at the bottom (and maybe even in the middle) of the labour market. And that's not to mention the potentially rapid rate of cultural transformation.
Why do we "have to" accept these things? There are more millionaires in the UK than there have ever been. There is no shortage of money. Distribution of wealth is about political will to make the world a better place for everyone as opposed to more comfortable for me.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Culturally an open borders policy is madness. We see this happening in Europe. So for instance when taking in refugees we should be prioritising Christians.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Culturally an open borders policy is madness. We see this happening in Europe. So for instance when taking in refugees we should be prioritising Christians.
Bollocks. When taking in refugees we should prioritise those most in need.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Culturally an open borders policy is madness. We see this happening in Europe. So for instance when taking in refugees we should be prioritising Christians.
Bollocks. When taking in refugees we should prioritise those most in need.
Yeah, because muslim immigration has been such a wild success.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
By which I guess you mean that people born and raised in the West see people who share their faith elsewhere, feel a sense of brotherhood because of their shared faith, they see them in need and decide to do what they consider to be practical steps to help them out.
But, I guess you think it's OK if those are Christians (eg: by letting Christians into "our" country), but it's not OK for Muslims.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Culturally an open borders policy is madness. We see this happening in Europe. So for instance when taking in refugees we should be prioritising Christians.
Bollocks. When taking in refugees we should prioritise those most in need.
Yeah, because muslim immigration has been such a wild success.
You'll find that organisations like Jihadwatch and Britain First provide plenty of evidence for this. They both promote "Christian values".
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Stetson:
I don't think taking the case of serious criminals gets at the issue.
Oh I think it does. Why should the occupants of the serial rapist's home nation have to put up with him living there? Don't they have the same right to not have him as we do? If you answer "yes" then you have to allow him to move elsewhere.
But elsewhere has a say in whether or not they accept him.
And, I believe several countries have laws preventing such deportations.
Yes. A country has the right to pass an INTERNALLY RECOGNIZED law ordering serial rapists to leave. But that doesn't obligate other countries to accept the serial rapists.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
And just to clarify...
quote:
Oh I think it does. Why should the occupants of the serial rapist's home nation have to put up with him living there? Don't they have the same right to not have him as we do?
Actually, no. They don't have that right. Not in regards to their own citizens.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
regardless of what a few proof-texts might indicate, it's pretty clear that the Old Testament does not endorse the general worldview underlying the contemporary open-borders movement.
Must have been a bummer for poor old Abram. Certain he'd heard God tell him to leave his home for a new land, only to get stuck behind the razor-wire on the border.
Or for Joseph's brothers. Or the rest of the Hebrews. Or the infant Jesus and his family.
But did it work in reverse? Did God command the Jews to just admit anyone into their territory, from any region, no questions asked?
On the "suffer a witch" thread, someone made the point that the OT's hostility to sorcerers was possibly linked to the linkage between sorcery and foreign religions, and that, in many cases, those foreign religions were practicing human sacrifice.
So, if God didn't even want the Jews to allow native-born sorcerers the right to live, I seriously doubt that he would have been cool with them admitting a few thousand blokes from a human-sacrificing tribe who just showed up one day and asked to be let in.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Most christians believe that a nation does have rights and that it is not per se wrong to limit entry to a country.
In a recent article, Matthew Paris says that, to his disappointment, Jesus' teaching offers no guidance.
I'm not sure it's true that "most" Christians believe it's not wrong to limit entry to a country. I'm sure it varies greatly from country to country, denomination to denomination. I'd want to see some stats before assuming this to be true. Not that it matters, of course. Christianity is not a democracy.
What I would dispute though is the statement that Jesus' teaching offers no guidance. As has been noted already, the OT gives abundant and specific guidance, with a strong and consistent record of commands to show hospitality for the "alien among you." Verses like these seem pretty unequivocal:
quote:
Ex. 22:21 “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Ex. 23:9 “Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.
By Jesus' time, Israel is an occupied nation so it's not really up to them who stays and who goes, so you don't see the same sort of specific references to treatment of aliens or refugees. But, as Lamb Chopped noted, every aspect of Jesus' consistent teaching on "loving your neighbor"-- which he goes out of his way to define as "outsiders" (Samaritans and Romans)-- seems to support the clear teaching of the OT on showing hospitality to aliens.
re: the Bible quotes. Is saying Don't Mistreat Foreigners Among You the same thing as advocating an open-borders policy? I certainly don't favour abusing or oppressing foreign-born people living in Canada. That doesn't mean that I think every foreign-born person has the right to move there.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
One problem is that some refugees want the laws of their new country to conform to their culture. I have heard of protests that Oktoberfest is anti-Muslim.
I am in favor of helping the needy, but the helpers should not be expected to abandon their own culture.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Equally, immigrants shouldn't have the culture of their hosts forced on them. If muslims in Germany are feeling pressured to participate in Oktoberfest then that is an example of inhospitable behaviour. That can come in many ways - unemployed people pressured to take any job on offer even if their faith is a problem, the boss taking his staff out for a drinking party and failure to go affecting promotion prospects, a republican atheist told he's unpatriotic for not singing a Christian prayer for a monarch ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But did it work in reverse? Did God command the Jews to just admit anyone into their territory, from any region, no questions asked?
There are verses which could be interpreted that way, yes.
However, I'm suspecting that both mine and your interpretation of those same verses will be more dependent on our existing views, rather than the wording or intent of the verses themselves, so quoting verses serves no real purpose.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The honest answer is that there are practical limitations on how many immigrants any one country can take in, even if they were willing to take everyone they could.
Oh, there certainly would be limitations somewhere along the line.
I'm not arguing for open borders myself, but trying to imagine what would need to happen, or end up happening, if the borders were a lot looser than they are now.
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
There are more millionaires in the UK than there have ever been. There is no shortage of money. Distribution of wealth is about political will to make the world a better place for everyone as opposed to more comfortable for me.
I'm not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think it's primarily a question of taking more money from rich people.
Very rich business people (and the politicians who rely on them) seem to approve of high levels of immigration because their companies benefit from having more people on the job market. But if wages and taxes remained high, despite lots more people being involved, it's hard to see what would incentivise all this business activity and generate all this wealth.
As you imply, capitalism might have to come to an end at some point in the open borders 'experiment'.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
LambChopped:
quote:
The only other option is "in the eyes of God, who made us and retains authority over us" and that's going to lead you straight into theology (and the question of which god, exactly, we are believing in).
It might be better to frame this in terms of ethics, as there is a core morality which 99% of the world agrees with, no matter how we yowl about the details of its outworking.
I was specifically seeking on opinions as to whether there is a genuine christian view which would claim to give guidance as to God's will on this issue. I am not convinced there is, and so could well agree with you that it is better to stick to ethics and not make it a religious issue.
I am getting increasingly to the uncomfortable position for a professed christian that Jesus was good on very generals principles but that these tend to sound more like platitudes when you try to apply them to a particular case.
For example, as has been quoted, "do unto others as you would have others do to you". This doesn't address the case. It's ok as a general exhortation to compassion, but you can't say it decides anything.
No migrant into the UK is asking me to give them what I want them to give me. They are asking the UK government to allow them access to the resources of the UK, because it is a better place to live. Which may be something that the UK government should do, but doesn't IMO follow from The Golden Rule.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Humble Servant:
quote:
Controlling our borders just means that we think "someone else" should sort out these problems because we don't want to face them.
I think you're almost right, and I think that the position is defensible.
Most people now are of the view that attempts from the West to "sort out" other countries do as much harm as good if not more. We don't want to face them because they distress us and we have no means or authority to sort them out. The "someone else" who has to sort them out are the citizens of the sovereign state.
And in many cases this will take a long time, and until it is done, there will be a lot of suffering. But if we believe people's have a right to make their own history, should we be trying to take over?
There are things we can do, of course, and in some cases have done. Effective aid, freeing global trade, debt forgiveness etc. But these only go so far.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Culturally an open borders policy is madness. We see this happening in Europe. So for instance when taking in refugees we should be prioritising Christians.
Bollocks. When taking in refugees we should prioritise those most in need.
Absolutely.
Ironically, prioritizing Christians would not be a very Christian thing to do.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
There have always been ex-pats and families moving across borders.
How many aliens could ancient Israel absorb and still keep it's character as ancient Israel? At what point does the issue switch from a mutually agreed assumption "the stranger needs to follow our ways, learn our language, adapt to our customs" to the more stressful conflict of assumptions "we migrants moved here to live OUR ways, speak our language, follow our customs, and you original residents need to adapt to us"?
Of course nothing's that black or white, but the effect of one person moving is quite different from the effect of 100,000 moving into your space.
My reaction to the current mass migration is "Europe will never be the same." That's a neutral objective observation, and Europe started changing decades ago from ethnicly separate nations to much broader. Going to Germany and seeing only German people, German foods, German use of space, or to Finland and seeing only Finns, is already history; the current migration will add more change.
Mass migration, unlike individual relocation, changes the character of the place migrated to. Good? Bad? No, just fact.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Most christians believe that a nation does have rights and that it is not per se wrong to limit entry to a country.
In a recent article, Matthew Paris says that, to his disappointment, Jesus' teaching offers no guidance.
I'm not sure it's true that "most" Christians believe it's not wrong to limit entry to a country. I'm sure it varies greatly from country to country, denomination to denomination. I'd want to see some stats before assuming this to be true. Not that it matters, of course. Christianity is not a democracy.
What I would dispute though is the statement that Jesus' teaching offers no guidance. As has been noted already, the OT gives abundant and specific guidance, with a strong and consistent record of commands to show hospitality for the "alien among you." Verses like these seem pretty unequivocal:
quote:
Ex. 22:21 “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Ex. 23:9 “Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.
By Jesus' time, Israel is an occupied nation so it's not really up to them who stays and who goes, so you don't see the same sort of specific references to treatment of aliens or refugees. But, as Lamb Chopped noted, every aspect of Jesus' consistent teaching on "loving your neighbor"-- which he goes out of his way to define as "outsiders" (Samaritans and Romans)-- seems to support the clear teaching of the OT on showing hospitality to aliens.
re: the Bible quotes. Is saying Don't Mistreat Foreigners Among You the same thing as advocating an open-borders policy? I certainly don't favour abusing or oppressing foreign-born people living in Canada. That doesn't mean that I think every foreign-born person has the right to move there.
Doc Tor is quite right that we both tend to read these verses with our own particular lenses. And we're talking a different cultural setting-- when nat'l boundaries were not as rigid and migration was a common experience.
But I would still answer yes. In both the verses I quoted (which are representative of a dozen or so more) the command to "treat immigrants well" is specifically tied to the immigrant experience of Israel itself ("for you were once aliens"). The context certainly seems to suggest that, yes, it is a call for compassion and openness in accepting outsiders.
I think we have a general principle here that is repeated frequently in a lot of settings in the Bible-- being open and compassionate to outsiders. As is generally the case, how that gets worked out in real life is a matter of interpretation/ discernment. A lot of the objections raised in this thread seem to be "special pleadings"-- should we have to accept a convicted rapist? Perhaps not. Should we have to continue accepting refugees to the point that our own people are in danger of starvation? Perhaps not (although the people of LeChambon were willing to do so). But what we're talking about here is neither of those things.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Humble Servant:
quote:
Controlling our borders just means that we think "someone else" should sort out these problems because we don't want to face them.
I think you're almost right, and I think that the position is defensible.
Most people now are of the view that attempts from the West to "sort out" other countries do as much harm as good if not more. We don't want to face them because they distress us and we have no means or authority to sort them out. The "someone else" who has to sort them out are the citizens of the sovereign state.
And in many cases this will take a long time, and until it is done, there will be a lot of suffering. But if we believe people's have a right to make their own history, should we be trying to take over?
There are things we can do, of course, and in some cases have done. Effective aid, freeing global trade, debt forgiveness etc. But these only go so far.
But this seems like an argument for open borders in this particularly case for what has been called in the US the "Pottery Barn rule"--- i.e. you broke it, you bought it. We created the instability and conflict in the Middle East in large degree by our ill-advised and self-interested intervention. We broke it, therefore the least we can do is do what we can for those who are suffering in part because of our actions.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
There have always been ex-pats and families moving across borders.
How many aliens could ancient Israel absorb and still keep it's character as ancient Israel? At what point does the issue switch from a mutually agreed assumption "the stranger needs to follow our ways, learn our language, adapt to our customs" to the more stressful conflict of assumptions "we migrants moved here to live OUR ways, speak our language, follow our customs, and you original residents need to adapt to us"?
...Mass migration, unlike individual relocation, changes the character of the place migrated to. Good? Bad? No, just fact.
Very true.
Here in the US, we have a common mythology about the "good immigrants" (the ones who "assimilate", learn the language & customs, etc) and the "bad immigrants" (ones who don't learn the language and adapt). Usually it's code for previous eras of European immigration vs. more recent Hispanic (and sometimes Asian) immigration.
But it's a myth. It's a myth because European immigrants were adapting to a culture that had already been shifted from the indigenous population to become... very European (at least at that time). But it's also a myth because it Just Didn't Happen That Way.
My parents were big proponents of the Myth, telling me stories of my grandparents who immigrated from Denmark and never looked back, immediately became Good Americans. It took years of digging to learn that they:
1. lived and socialized almost entirely in a Danish community
2. read Danish language newspapers
3. met & married at a Danish social gathering
4. never really learned to speak English well
Turns out this is true of almost every 1st generation immigrant group, everywhere. It's just the nature of immigration. There's predictable levels of "assimilation" among 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gen. that tend to play out regardless of which cultures we're talking about. And, as Belle suggests, it's not really "good" or "bad" it just is. But having a revisionist mythology of prior immigration doesn't help us understand and accept the current wave of 1st gen immigrants.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I'm not sure whether anyone has said this, but I think it has to be the starting point.
Huge masses of people are leaving Syria, Iraq and Eritrea because they have become uninhabitable. They are no longer countries in which it is possible to build a life. The link between the country in the geographical sense, the associated political state and the population has been broken. At that point, borders become irrelevant because the ties which bound together people and borders no longer exist.
It is by no means obvious what happens now. There are two different imperatives: one immediate, one medium/long term. The immediate imperative is that the people thus shed by their former nations need somewhere to live. The medium/long term imperative, on the other hand, is that their states of origin may need them back if they are to rebuild themselves. This clearly cannot happen immediately, so what should happen to them in the meantime, and should it be in the meantime, or should this potential need for them within their original states be disregarded because there is no guarantee that it will ever actually happen.
We have seen enough situations - the primary example in my mind is Palestine - where several generations of "refugees" have lived out their lives in camps, waiting to return to states which either no longer exist or can never provide a home for them. As a result, the surrounding "settled" population is left with this perpetual instability in their midst, and the people in the camps are left with no potential for a future built on solid foundations.
On the other hand, states need populations to rebuild, and they need economically productive populations. They cannot afford to lose these. This point probably shouldn't be forgotten either amid determination to ensure that displaced people are given a stable alternative home.
To return directly to the original question, national borders are not just lines on a map. They are boundaries of communities and of mutual obligation. Once those functions cease to be associated with borders, the states defined by those borders lose their capacity to define the lives of those within them. To that extent, they cease to exist.
The borders of the states around them - including any state which may be called upon to receive those displaced in this way - do not cease to exist. Some care would appear to be needed to ensure that the host states survive the process of receiving the refugees. Otherwise, the populations of both states then become refugees. The host states need to make themselves - their self-concept and their practical infrastructure - sufficiently resilient to receive these refugees. T
This is work we must do, as with all the states called upon to receive the refugees. Not that it is only movement of people that can endanger the engagement between a state and its population, but that is largely a point for a different thread.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Ironically, prioritizing Christians would not be a very Christian thing to do.
I don't know if I agree, really have struggled with this over years. In one sense, we see God reflected in everyone, but does the concept of "Brothers and Sisters in Christ" have no meaning?
If there was a (brief) time when Christians were admired for "how they love one another" they had to be prioritizing use of time and goods, or it wouldn't have been noticed that they loved "one another," were they wrong to be focusing help on other Christians? When the first deacons were appointed to distributed care to the poor and widows of the church, was that whole scheme wrong because it was taking care of Christians instead of letting some Christians suffer by giving some of the food to non-Christians?
I just don't know. I do think in general we have a duty to notice more strongly the needs of "our own." Make sure our family is adequately fed before giving food to strangers. Make sure you don't donate so much to charity you leave your family homeless.
Does this obligation to take more care of the ones closest to you stop at the family threshold? Or does it continue into the local church, the personal friendships (tribes), the broader church, the world, a little more dilute at each step beyond the family door?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I just don't know. I do think in general we have a duty to notice more strongly the needs of "our own." Make sure our family is adequately fed before giving food to strangers. Make sure you don't donate so much to charity you leave your family homeless.
Does this obligation to take more care of the ones closest to you stop at the family threshold? Or does it continue into the local church, the personal friendships (tribes), the broader church, the world, a little more dilute at each step beyond the family door?
Again, I think this is a very normal and natural instinct-- perhaps even something with an evolutionary advantage. For that reason, most of us, Christians included, will have a tendency towards this. But I don't think it is a Christian way to proceed. Eph. 2 is probably the clearest argument vs. the us v them thinking, although there are others. Jesus often (perhaps even "usually") calls us to things that are counter-cultural and counter-intuitive. This is one of them.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Ironically, prioritizing Christians would not be a very Christian thing to do.
I don't know if I agree, really have struggled with this over years. In one sense, we see God reflected in everyone, but does the concept of "Brothers and Sisters in Christ" have no meaning?
If there was a (brief) time when Christians were admired for "how they love one another" they had to be prioritizing use of time and goods, or it wouldn't have been noticed that they loved "one another," were they wrong to be focusing help on other Christians? When the first deacons were appointed to distributed care to the poor and widows of the church, was that whole scheme wrong because it was taking care of Christians instead of letting some Christians suffer by giving some of the food to non-Christians?
I just don't know. I do think in general we have a duty to notice more strongly the needs of "our own." Make sure our family is adequately fed before giving food to strangers. Make sure you don't donate so much to charity you leave your family homeless.
Does this obligation to take more care of the ones closest to you stop at the family threshold? Or does it continue into the local church, the personal friendships (tribes), the broader church, the world, a little more dilute at each step beyond the family door?
That's more-or-less my thinking on that particular point but I also do think that Europe should remain essentially European and that we should work towards it remaining so (which is one reason why I would prioritise Christians because Europe is Christian).
As for the the refugee crisis I would be one of those who would suggest that those countries which have been intervening in the Middle-East should be the ones with the greater responsibility in helping those refugees, so that would be the likes of America, Britain etc.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There's predictable levels of "assimilation" among 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gen. that tend to play out regardless of which cultures we're talking about. And, as Belle suggests, it's not really "good" or "bad" it just is. But having a revisionist mythology of prior immigration doesn't help us understand and accept the current wave of 1st gen immigrants.
Europe is a bit different, though, because the Muslims who come here don't necessarily become less Muslim in order to 'assimilate'. Indeed, some studies show that the 2nd and 3rd gens in Britain become more committed to Islam. This is admirable in a way, but it's not exactly assimilation.
The concern now is that having large numbers of immigrants from a very different culture arriving all at once makes assimilation even more difficult. This is because most of them will now be settling in areas which are already very Muslim or very multicultural, and where 'Englishness' isn't significantly present as something to assimilate into. This is where their children will be brought up and educated.
Commentators note that the rate of segregation is increasing, as indigenous populations move away from city areas, and ethnic and religious minorities become majorities in those areas. Correlation is not necessarily causation, but the effect is that people won't get to know each other and identify with each other as they might.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The concern now is that having large numbers of immigrants from a very different culture arriving all at once makes assimilation even more difficult. This is because most of them will now be settling in areas which are already very Muslim or very multicultural, and where 'Englishness' isn't significantly present as something to assimilate into. This is where their children will be brought up and educated.
Commentators note that the rate of segregation is increasing, as indigenous populations move away from city areas, and ethnic and religious minorities become majorities in those areas. Correlation is not necessarily causation, but the effect is that people won't get to know each other and identify with each other as they might.
This might be a cross-pond difference. In the US, immigration has tended to happen in "waves" like this throughout our history, with large groups of people immigrating en masse from one place or another for a variety of reasons. And yes, generally they do remain segregated in similar immigrant communities, which is why today in most large American cities you'll find a "Little Italy", "Chinatown", "Little Saigon", etc.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Europe should remain essentially European and that we should work towards it remaining so (which is one reason why I would prioritise Christians because Europe is Christian).
Europe is culturally Christian, but whether the cultural Christianity of Syrians or others is exactly the same sort of 'culture' is another matter. Their Christian spirituality is certainly likely to be different from the European norm.
A part of me thinks that a largely secular, post-Christian Europe (in a spiritual sense) is hypocritical in expressing a preference for Christian refugees/migrants. A cynic might say that Christian migrants are only preferable because they're easier to secularise than Muslim ones are.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Europe is culturally Christian, but whether the cultural Christianity of Syrians or others is exactly the same sort of 'culture' is another matter. Their Christian spirituality is certainly likely to be different from the European norm.
Perhaps not so much Protestants but their spirituality would be similar to Orthodox and Catholics.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Europe is Christian
Says the man from a country which, like most of northern Europe, was once a stronghold of Nordic paganism.
Europe is no more Christian than the people who live there - which is to say (with a few exceptions) not that very.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But did it work in reverse? Did God command the Jews to just admit anyone into their territory, from any region, no questions asked?
There are verses which could be interpreted that way, yes.
However, I'm suspecting that both mine and your interpretation of those same verses will be more dependent on our existing views, rather than the wording or intent of the verses themselves, so quoting verses serves no real purpose.
But even if those verses are interpreted as advocating open borders, it's still within a context that is very different from the one we are now operating in.
A world where God says "Anyone who deviates from the proper faith should be killed" is very different from one in which the prevailing form of governance is liberal democracy.
Canada blocked Fred Phelps when he tried to enter, likely because the government figured he'd make a pest of himself by going around harassing the bereaved at funerals.
Now, yes, maybe in OT days, there were no border controls, and the equivalent of a Westboro Baprist was free to enter Jewish territory. But those visitors would also know that if they went around screaming their heads off at Jewish religious rituals, the next funeral would be their own.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Ad Orientem
In theory, yes, but in practice? Catholics share the same doctrines, but they don't all practice or worship or live the faith in exactly the same way. I understand that there are plenty of differences around the world.
For example, English RCs may be tolerant about pre-marital sex, but would Syrian ones be quite so okay about it? Regarding worship, perhaps they'd end up having their own services, with their own priests, maintaining their own understanding of Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) and not really trying to fit in with the church's norms in the country they're living in.
[ 19. September 2015, 15:22: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Says the man from a country which, like most of northern Europe, was once a stronghold of Nordic paganism.
Piss poor argument! It's completely irrelevant. We have been Christian for 800 years and it was the native population themselves who converted through missionaries from the East and West.
quote:
Europe is no more Christian than the people who live there - which is to say (with a few exceptions) not that very.
Through great folly. Rationalism leads to Protestantism leads to atheism. Mass immigration, Freemasonry and neo-liberalism is finishing the job.
[ 19. September 2015, 15:31: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
A lot of the objections raised in this thread seem to be "special pleadings"-- should we have to accept a convicted rapist? Perhaps not. Should we have to continue accepting refugees to the point that our own people are in danger of starvation? Perhaps not (although the people of LeChambon were willing to do so). But what we're talking about here is neither of those things.
Well, I interpreted the original question as being whether the government has the right to limit entry, full stop. All I'm saying is that, yes, once you say "Well, we don't want serial rapists to come in", you ARE coming down on the side of a government's right to limit entry.
Now, if the question is whether we should have a wide or a narrow criteria about who we let in, then that's a different question. My own view is that a country's immigration policy(refugee policy is a different matter) should be based on that country's economic needs, not concern for the well-being of potential migrants. But once the government has decided how many people it is beneficial to admit, they can pretty much allow in anyone, as far as I'm concerned. With a few exceptions, like the now-iconic serial rapist or Westboro Baptists.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
