Border security is simply a foundational prerequisite to any system of immigration law excepting that of "open borders" ( that is, no regulation of immigration).
In the Reagan years, a fairly extensive amnesty was granted to unlawful immigrants in a promised two-step plan to then "secure the border." Sadly, step two just never happened (and we've been dealing with the dysfunctionality resulting from that in the decades since).
One of the biggest barriers to progress on this is evidenced by California's newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom, whose very recent announcement declared that his state would be open to all. Newsom is an "open borders" guy and not afraid to say it. Germany was that too not so long ago (but since has abandoned that perspective). Many more are also "open borders" advocates but are unwilling to simply say that. Instead, they argue about how a wall might not be the smart way to solve the problem, or that ICE should be abolished because it has been so mean, and then do nothing to secure the border (which is a de facto open border policy).
It is not Trumpian to say that if a nation doesn't regulate entrance to its geographical territory, it is, by definition, not a nation. Germany could do that only so long. If Newsom has the power to open California's border to all (which he may not), he could do that only so long without threatening California's existence as a political sub-entity (a state within a federalist nation).
Yes, it is complicated. Which is why repeating simple mantras like "welcome the stranger" and "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden" are less than constructive. Indeed, repeating mantras like that only increase the political polarization.
My local church did just that, Dan, in the late 1970's for two post-Vietnam war refugee families. This is the tradition of CRCers and CRC churches.
Where we (in the CRC) have departed since then is in two ways: (1) these days we focus much more on the political instead of the personal, trying, it would seem, to make government our proxy; (2) when we do things directly, we tend these days to do it with our own more centralized organizations instead of with our local churches or individual families within a local church.
I don't think "legitimate asylum seekers are being stereotyped as 'illegals' or criminals," Steve, at least by most people, on whatever side of the aisle.
The underlying reality, which may make it seem as you claim, is that most asylum claims, especially from south of the border, are in fact faux. Our immigration laws have created practical but unlawful avenues by which effective admission to the US can be achieved by (falsely) claiming the right to asylum, even if most of those claims are later (assuming claimants show up for later) not shown to be real.
Sure, the fact that so many asylum claims are faux will create for some a sterotype mindset, but the vast majority know there are legitimate asylum claims and asylum seekers. No substantial groups advocates against real asylum seekers, but faux claimants cause legitimate claimants to be hard to see and find.
Keep in mind that the definition of asylum is actually pretty narrow. There are many non-asylum seekers who notwithstanding seek to immigrant. The analysis there is more complex. And the real disagreement is about those people.
Steve: Numbers of faux claims: check out https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/80-percent-of-asylum-cases-at-southwest-border-arent-legitimate-dhs-chief-says
I also office with an attorney who does immigration law full time. She would verify, even if based on anecdotal evidence.
Now it probably is the case that that many of those seeking asylum think they should get asylum because they perceive (and perhaps correctly) that life is not good for them in the country where they are from. But that (life is not good) is not a basis for being granted asylum. I'm not intending to bad mouth immigrants, even unlawful ones, in saying this. Hey, they would rather live in the US (or Canada) because life would be much better for them here than where they come from. I suspect I would be of the same mind in their shoes.
My guess is that many Americans are unaware of what constitutes a right to asylum and what doesn't. And I wouldn't be surprised if that unawareness is itself the cause of much argument. It seems to me that the fundamental argument in this country is whether the US government should allow whoever wants to enter the country to enter (minus perhaps terrorists and certain levels of criminals) -- that is, a de facto open border -- or whether the US government should regulate (by limitation) the actual numbers of immigrants (asylum seekers and non-asylum seekers) that are allowed entry. If the government does regulate (limit), some who want to come to the US, even for understandable and "good" reasons, will not be permitted (or perhaps permitted by years down the road).
Ken: I think the more focused question is whether the CRCNA should, if it is, pitch an open border policy. The CRCNA has been public in affirming the need for "border security" but hasn't defined what that means. Further, the recurring and oft-repeated mantras from the CRCNA are two-fold: (1) we must "welcome the stranger," and (2) "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden."
These two mantras, combined with DoJustice articles, OSJ recommended books, and other CRCNA proclamations (e.g., a recent OSJ political action alert encouraged opposition to any increased border security funding in the upcoming federal budget). So much of what the CRCNA says "around the question" would cause many reasonable observers to conclude the CRCNA did support "open borders," even if it didn't directly say so. After all, how can your "welcome the stranger" (proposed as a biblical mandate) while not allowing them entrance into the United States? And if indeed, the singular thing we say about immigrants (legal or not) is that they are "a blessing and not a burden" then why would we want to exclude anyone? And why would you lobby your members to oppose an increase in border security funding in the upcoming federal budget?
There is an old but still valid saying: Government sponsored lotteries are just a sneaky tax on stupidity.
The good news is that any individual person can opt out of the tax. The bad news is that government sponsored lotteries are also a form of public education, and the lessons taught, as explained in part by this article, are not good at all but rather destructive.
Thank you for the valuable contribution Dan. Nuts and bolts considerations for local churches are, I believe, under-rated, until at least things threaten to collapse for failure to attend to nuts and bolts considerations.
A local church is a number of things, but one of them is an organization of multiple people. And any organization, churches not excluded, benefit from geeky work. I appreciate yours. :-)
Lou. I don't think I'm kidding myself at all. I think you are wrong about the motivation. Sponsoring the two Hmong families we sponsored advanced no anti-communist agenda that my church had or knew about. We were asked to sponsor Hmong refugee families. We said yes.
What has changed between then and now is that "processing" refugee families has become big business (even if big non-profit business). This reflects the general trend toward centralization (e.g., federalized home loan market which buys mortgages at subsidized rates from local banks and non-bank brokers).
Would my church sponsor a refugee family again if asked? I'd guess yes. Do I expect it will be asked to? Nope.
Now, if you ask whether my church would take in a refugee family that was here unlawfully (refugee by their own declaration only), that would be a different question, just as it would have been different had the Hmong families been smuggled here.
For what it's worth Dan Zylstra, while I suspect Dan W wouldn't argue with your nuance as to his post, it never crossed my mind that Dan W was suggesting A1B wanted "the CRC to normalize and celebrate" anything but "committed or monogamous" gay (etc) relationships. I've certainly never had that impression of A1B.
Thanks for taking the time to respond Dan. As you might expect, I've not been persuaded that gay sex is allowed by scripture, even if "monogamous and committed," but I appreciate the discussion none the less, and especially your commitment that the CRC come to its conclusions on these questions based on scripture as opposed to "personal story" (not that personal story should play zero role in our consideration of the questions).
Your "possible arguments" are similar to those I've read (in books included in A1B's list of recommendeds). I tend to conclude as I have for two dominant reasons:
First, the scriptural references clearly condemn gay sex and provide reasons for the condemnation including the reasons given. Your "possible arguments" dismissing the condemnation also favor the legitimizing of bestiality (the next verse in my reference). Plus I note that the sex during menstruation verse does not characterize that as specifically "bad" for a specific reason, as the verses on gay sex and bestiality do.
Second, I have found no (zero) affirming biblical references related to gay sex, despite the fact that gay sex is a very ancient phenomena, perhaps as ancient as heterosexual sex.
My greatest concern with A1B is their insistence that the CRC must change as they have. Christ's church is not defined merely as the CRC. A1B folk have lots of churches they could join, including some already of their persuasion on these questions. It seems to me that an effort of this sort, from inside an institutional church, is unbiblically decisive and unproductive as to the task of the CRC as an institutional church. A1B efforts smack of a political campaign and their tactics (which I think Dan W reports accurately having seen these tactics first hand myself) are similar to politic tactics.
I'm not saying that Christians should never "be political." They should, but there is "a time and a place" for being political, but the A1B effort within the CRC is, respectfully, neither.
So what if it turns out the AB1 is right? That, e.g., we someday find in the that scripture's translations have been seriously faulty on this question specifically. Then I think, the CRC, and CRCers, will eventually be convinced. But for now, it is mere story, the personal desire on the part of some, that scripture says other than it does, that drives this effort, and I think Dan W reports well on that.
Daniel: I do appreciate your struggle, even if I guess I don't empathize with it (in terms of what scripture says).
But here are a couple of my thoughts about yours.
You seem to suggest that unless a "who is Jesus Christ?" question is invoked by a hermetical/theology difference, there may not be cause to an institutional church to prohibit, or perhapsdivide. I specifically say "institutional" because the discussion is quite different if the question is about the organic ("holy catholic") church.
If what you suggest (as I understand it) is correct, then I'm not sure that the concept of "church discipline" (which is always an institutional church question, not an organic church question) isn't completely lost, at least as to the "life" (as opposed to "faith") issues.
Anyone can make an argument of biblical justification for: viewing pornography, stealing from someone else, polyamory, bestiality, drug abuse, greed, hatred, and many, many other real world, real life behaviors that an "orthodox" perspective would understand to be a "life" problem, just as, e.g., Paul saw and pointed out "life" problems as he dealt with the various churches.
If the CRC becomes the "all one body" that A1B wants, it would not only introduces a new doctrine, not to mention a new hermeneutic, it would also introduce new truths and new teachings to real world CRC congregations and their congregants (real people) about many real world, real life questions. Questions like: what should we teach our children about what a family is?, what mothers are?, what fathers are?, the purposes of sex?, what constraints should we set for dating, for sexual behavior?, is marriage a prerequisite for "living together"?, and much more.
If A1B succeeds, why would not the next generation of A1Bers be one that wants to get rid of A1B's current "monogamous" and "committed" requirements for sexual relationships? Surely, biblical arguments can be made to eliminate those requirements, not? Certainly, people can tell stories of how they suffer because they long to love more than one spouse (etc etc).
If we should be "All One Body," why in the world would Councils not tolerate any form of gender identification, bestiality, polyamory, family definition, and the list goes on. For that matter, if "All One Body" is the goal, why should drunkenness not be be tolerated (wine makes glad the heart don't you know), or meth abuse, or laziness. And if those things are tolerated, why should they not also be taught as "valid options." We aim to be a "liberal society" after all -- don't we?
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Border security is simply a foundational prerequisite to any system of immigration law excepting that of "open borders" ( that is, no regulation of immigration).
In the Reagan years, a fairly extensive amnesty was granted to unlawful immigrants in a promised two-step plan to then "secure the border." Sadly, step two just never happened (and we've been dealing with the dysfunctionality resulting from that in the decades since).
One of the biggest barriers to progress on this is evidenced by California's newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom, whose very recent announcement declared that his state would be open to all. Newsom is an "open borders" guy and not afraid to say it. Germany was that too not so long ago (but since has abandoned that perspective). Many more are also "open borders" advocates but are unwilling to simply say that. Instead, they argue about how a wall might not be the smart way to solve the problem, or that ICE should be abolished because it has been so mean, and then do nothing to secure the border (which is a de facto open border policy).
It is not Trumpian to say that if a nation doesn't regulate entrance to its geographical territory, it is, by definition, not a nation. Germany could do that only so long. If Newsom has the power to open California's border to all (which he may not), he could do that only so long without threatening California's existence as a political sub-entity (a state within a federalist nation).
Yes, it is complicated. Which is why repeating simple mantras like "welcome the stranger" and "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden" are less than constructive. Indeed, repeating mantras like that only increase the political polarization.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
My local church did just that, Dan, in the late 1970's for two post-Vietnam war refugee families. This is the tradition of CRCers and CRC churches.
Where we (in the CRC) have departed since then is in two ways: (1) these days we focus much more on the political instead of the personal, trying, it would seem, to make government our proxy; (2) when we do things directly, we tend these days to do it with our own more centralized organizations instead of with our local churches or individual families within a local church.
I favor the more distant CRC tradition on this.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
I don't think "legitimate asylum seekers are being stereotyped as 'illegals' or criminals," Steve, at least by most people, on whatever side of the aisle.
The underlying reality, which may make it seem as you claim, is that most asylum claims, especially from south of the border, are in fact faux. Our immigration laws have created practical but unlawful avenues by which effective admission to the US can be achieved by (falsely) claiming the right to asylum, even if most of those claims are later (assuming claimants show up for later) not shown to be real.
Sure, the fact that so many asylum claims are faux will create for some a sterotype mindset, but the vast majority know there are legitimate asylum claims and asylum seekers. No substantial groups advocates against real asylum seekers, but faux claimants cause legitimate claimants to be hard to see and find.
Keep in mind that the definition of asylum is actually pretty narrow. There are many non-asylum seekers who notwithstanding seek to immigrant. The analysis there is more complex. And the real disagreement is about those people.
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Steve: Numbers of faux claims: check out https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/80-percent-of-asylum-cases-at-southwest-border-arent-legitimate-dhs-chief-says
I also office with an attorney who does immigration law full time. She would verify, even if based on anecdotal evidence.
Now it probably is the case that that many of those seeking asylum think they should get asylum because they perceive (and perhaps correctly) that life is not good for them in the country where they are from. But that (life is not good) is not a basis for being granted asylum. I'm not intending to bad mouth immigrants, even unlawful ones, in saying this. Hey, they would rather live in the US (or Canada) because life would be much better for them here than where they come from. I suspect I would be of the same mind in their shoes.
My guess is that many Americans are unaware of what constitutes a right to asylum and what doesn't. And I wouldn't be surprised if that unawareness is itself the cause of much argument. It seems to me that the fundamental argument in this country is whether the US government should allow whoever wants to enter the country to enter (minus perhaps terrorists and certain levels of criminals) -- that is, a de facto open border -- or whether the US government should regulate (by limitation) the actual numbers of immigrants (asylum seekers and non-asylum seekers) that are allowed entry. If the government does regulate (limit), some who want to come to the US, even for understandable and "good" reasons, will not be permitted (or perhaps permitted by years down the road).
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Ken: I think the more focused question is whether the CRCNA should, if it is, pitch an open border policy. The CRCNA has been public in affirming the need for "border security" but hasn't defined what that means. Further, the recurring and oft-repeated mantras from the CRCNA are two-fold: (1) we must "welcome the stranger," and (2) "immigrants are a blessing and not a burden."
These two mantras, combined with DoJustice articles, OSJ recommended books, and other CRCNA proclamations (e.g., a recent OSJ political action alert encouraged opposition to any increased border security funding in the upcoming federal budget). So much of what the CRCNA says "around the question" would cause many reasonable observers to conclude the CRCNA did support "open borders," even if it didn't directly say so. After all, how can your "welcome the stranger" (proposed as a biblical mandate) while not allowing them entrance into the United States? And if indeed, the singular thing we say about immigrants (legal or not) is that they are "a blessing and not a burden" then why would we want to exclude anyone? And why would you lobby your members to oppose an increase in border security funding in the upcoming federal budget?
Posted in: Since When Does Winning $1.6 Billion Mean You’ve Made It?
There is an old but still valid saying: Government sponsored lotteries are just a sneaky tax on stupidity.
The good news is that any individual person can opt out of the tax. The bad news is that government sponsored lotteries are also a form of public education, and the lessons taught, as explained in part by this article, are not good at all but rather destructive.
Posted in: Assessing Congregational Volunteer Capacity: A Few factors and Limits
Thank you for the valuable contribution Dan. Nuts and bolts considerations for local churches are, I believe, under-rated, until at least things threaten to collapse for failure to attend to nuts and bolts considerations.
A local church is a number of things, but one of them is an organization of multiple people. And any organization, churches not excluded, benefit from geeky work. I appreciate yours. :-)
Posted in: Immigration Justice Requires Border Security
Lou. I don't think I'm kidding myself at all. I think you are wrong about the motivation. Sponsoring the two Hmong families we sponsored advanced no anti-communist agenda that my church had or knew about. We were asked to sponsor Hmong refugee families. We said yes.
What has changed between then and now is that "processing" refugee families has become big business (even if big non-profit business). This reflects the general trend toward centralization (e.g., federalized home loan market which buys mortgages at subsidized rates from local banks and non-bank brokers).
Would my church sponsor a refugee family again if asked? I'd guess yes. Do I expect it will be asked to? Nope.
Now, if you ask whether my church would take in a refugee family that was here unlawfully (refugee by their own declaration only), that would be a different question, just as it would have been different had the Hmong families been smuggled here.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
For what it's worth Dan Zylstra, while I suspect Dan W wouldn't argue with your nuance as to his post, it never crossed my mind that Dan W was suggesting A1B wanted "the CRC to normalize and celebrate" anything but "committed or monogamous" gay (etc) relationships. I've certainly never had that impression of A1B.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Don: I'm not getting it. What's the inflammatory language?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thanks for taking the time to respond Dan. As you might expect, I've not been persuaded that gay sex is allowed by scripture, even if "monogamous and committed," but I appreciate the discussion none the less, and especially your commitment that the CRC come to its conclusions on these questions based on scripture as opposed to "personal story" (not that personal story should play zero role in our consideration of the questions).
Your "possible arguments" are similar to those I've read (in books included in A1B's list of recommendeds). I tend to conclude as I have for two dominant reasons:
First, the scriptural references clearly condemn gay sex and provide reasons for the condemnation including the reasons given. Your "possible arguments" dismissing the condemnation also favor the legitimizing of bestiality (the next verse in my reference). Plus I note that the sex during menstruation verse does not characterize that as specifically "bad" for a specific reason, as the verses on gay sex and bestiality do.
Second, I have found no (zero) affirming biblical references related to gay sex, despite the fact that gay sex is a very ancient phenomena, perhaps as ancient as heterosexual sex.
My greatest concern with A1B is their insistence that the CRC must change as they have. Christ's church is not defined merely as the CRC. A1B folk have lots of churches they could join, including some already of their persuasion on these questions. It seems to me that an effort of this sort, from inside an institutional church, is unbiblically decisive and unproductive as to the task of the CRC as an institutional church. A1B efforts smack of a political campaign and their tactics (which I think Dan W reports accurately having seen these tactics first hand myself) are similar to politic tactics.
I'm not saying that Christians should never "be political." They should, but there is "a time and a place" for being political, but the A1B effort within the CRC is, respectfully, neither.
So what if it turns out the AB1 is right? That, e.g., we someday find in the that scripture's translations have been seriously faulty on this question specifically. Then I think, the CRC, and CRCers, will eventually be convinced. But for now, it is mere story, the personal desire on the part of some, that scripture says other than it does, that drives this effort, and I think Dan W reports well on that.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Daniel: I do appreciate your struggle, even if I guess I don't empathize with it (in terms of what scripture says).
But here are a couple of my thoughts about yours.
You seem to suggest that unless a "who is Jesus Christ?" question is invoked by a hermetical/theology difference, there may not be cause to an institutional church to prohibit, or perhapsdivide. I specifically say "institutional" because the discussion is quite different if the question is about the organic ("holy catholic") church.
If what you suggest (as I understand it) is correct, then I'm not sure that the concept of "church discipline" (which is always an institutional church question, not an organic church question) isn't completely lost, at least as to the "life" (as opposed to "faith") issues.
Anyone can make an argument of biblical justification for: viewing pornography, stealing from someone else, polyamory, bestiality, drug abuse, greed, hatred, and many, many other real world, real life behaviors that an "orthodox" perspective would understand to be a "life" problem, just as, e.g., Paul saw and pointed out "life" problems as he dealt with the various churches.
If the CRC becomes the "all one body" that A1B wants, it would not only introduces a new doctrine, not to mention a new hermeneutic, it would also introduce new truths and new teachings to real world CRC congregations and their congregants (real people) about many real world, real life questions. Questions like: what should we teach our children about what a family is?, what mothers are?, what fathers are?, the purposes of sex?, what constraints should we set for dating, for sexual behavior?, is marriage a prerequisite for "living together"?, and much more.
If A1B succeeds, why would not the next generation of A1Bers be one that wants to get rid of A1B's current "monogamous" and "committed" requirements for sexual relationships? Surely, biblical arguments can be made to eliminate those requirements, not? Certainly, people can tell stories of how they suffer because they long to love more than one spouse (etc etc).
If we should be "All One Body," why in the world would Councils not tolerate any form of gender identification, bestiality, polyamory, family definition, and the list goes on. For that matter, if "All One Body" is the goal, why should drunkenness not be be tolerated (wine makes glad the heart don't you know), or meth abuse, or laziness. And if those things are tolerated, why should they not also be taught as "valid options." We aim to be a "liberal society" after all -- don't we?