David Codrea.

“One of the Republican sponsors, California Rep. Doug LaMalfa, said the bill was needed because Americans are too lazy.”

That the collectivists have created mass dependency where many don’t have to work in exchange for votes seems not to be open for discussion. That’s too bad because by closing that topic down through smears and intimidation, thoughtful examination of how “beneficiaries” of wealth transfers are actually victimized over generations will never happen. That’s part of the plan.

What an insulting charge.  Apparently Doug isn’t inclined to mention the fact that it’s the lazy Americans who work hard to provide that free medical care for immigrants, and that free medical care is one of the primary reasons for that immigration.

You see, immigrants aren’t the only people who like that free medical care.  The corporations like it too because they don’t have to fund it.  Corporate welfare is popular among corporatists.  And immigrants.  And democrats.  And many republicans.

Just not working Americans.  Who aren’t lazy.

And yes, immigration does indeed advance the anti-gun agenda.  Grok this.  It doesn’t matter if they come legally or illegally.  If they get to vote, they vote in favor of socialist views, including gun control, by 70%-80%.

It’s a fact, and it is not in dispute.  That’s my problem with the notion of securing the border and then ensuring that they are all legal.  It still means a vote against your God-given rights.  It’s six one way, half a dozen the other, and it all adds up to problems in the future.

Donald Sensing, via WRSA:

Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code provides in relevant part:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Bryan Fischer adds the following very informative analysis.

The Constitution gives Congress unilateral authority over the issue of immigration and citizenship in Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” In Article I, Section 9 we find that until 1808 the individual States had authority to decide which persons were “proper to admit.” After 1808, deciding who was eligible for immigration into the United States was the exclusive province of the central government. Congress has unilateral authority to decide who it is “proper to admit” to the United States, and there are no limitations on that authority.

There is no constitutional right, of course, to immigrate to the United States. It is a privilege, not a right. And we the people have given to Congress authority to set parameters for immigration for our protection, our cultural unity, and our national security.

This is all well and good, but Bryan gets to the real meat of the issue when he addresses the Biblical data.

For those of us who are evangelicals, there is a second question, which is of greater importance than the first. We not only want to know if an immigration ban is constitutional, we want to know if it is biblical. Did God himself ever impose such an immigration ban?

The answer is yes.  With the fledgling nation on the edge of the Promised Land, God instituted a permanent ban (“forever”) on immigration into Israel from two nations, Ammon and Moab.

“No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever.” ~ Deut. 23:3 (ESV)

This was not an arbitrary ban. It was not imposed on either the nations of Edom or Egypt, as Deut. 23:7 makes clear. There were good common sense reasons for God’s ban on the Ammonites and Moabites. “They did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt … and they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor … to curse you” (Deut. 23:4).

Ammonites and Moabites were not allowed to immigrate because of their historic animosity toward the people of God and their commitment to weaken them and defeat them. Where such conditions exist today, a similar ban on foreign immigration would have biblical precedent.

Now obviously exceptions could be made and were made on a limited basis. Ruth, for instance, was allowed to immigrate into Israel from Moab. Ruth rejected the ancient hostility of her people toward Israel and embraced its culture and its God. “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:17). In other words, she happily assimilated in every way, included in religious matters, to her newly adopted nation.

She was not only welcomed, but found a place in the line of descent that led to the birth of the Savior of the world.

The bottom line: a ban on immigration from nations which have demonstrated abiding hostility toward the United States is both constitutionally and biblically permissible.

This is effective medicine.  Usually when so-called Christians talk about immigration, they wax emotional on the need for us to care for people.  State policy and security are the last thing on their minds when they say things like that.

I often hear Leviticus 19:34 cited – “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God,” (NASB).  Folks often do this to shame Christians into accepting open borders.

But as the Biblical data above shows, shaming people isn’t on the list of seminary-approved Biblical hermeneutical techniques.  One way to tell that the emotional Christian isn’t thinking through this issue is that she latches onto the problem of the moment, rather than seeing the broader implications of her position.  For example, she may want to take in Syrian immigrants, but she doesn’t give poor Chinese equal numbers, of Kenyans, or Ethiopians (who are more likely to be Christian), or the poor in Bangladesh.

The U.S. can’t take in everyone, and the logical end of the emotional position that wants to take them in is not only the destruction of what wealth remains within family structure in America, it is the destruction of the social, cultural and religious heritage of the country.  There isn’t enough wealth to go around – there isn’t even enough wealth to pay our own bills.  The root problem here is that the Church has no business declaring state policy concerning immigration.  The province of the church is the administration of grace, while the province of the state is the administration of justice.  Confusing the two means the state is involved in redistribution of wealth, and the Church is trying to influence policy concerning national security.

Each of these institutions should mind their own business, and in the case of the state, that means the country’s policy has no business considering graciousness, kindness or love when it comes to immigration.  As Clint Eastwood said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

As I’ve explained before:

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

Among everyone in the Senate and House, Jeff Sessions gets it.

A sensible immigration policy would also listen to the opinion of the American people. Not the opinions of the paid-for consultants trotted out with their agenda-driven polls to GOP member meetings—but the actual, honest opinion of the people who sent us here. There is a reason why none of the corporate-funded ads for amnesty breathe a word about doubling immigration levels. According to Rasmussen Reports, working and middle class Americans strongly oppose large expansions of our already generous immigration system. Those earning under $30,000 prefer a reduction to an increase by an overwhelming 3-1 margin. 

And bad policy, the senator from Alabama details. “Coordinating with a small group of the nation’s most powerful special interests, last year President Obama and Senate Democrats forced through an immigration bill which can only be described as a hammer blow to the American middle class. Not only would it grant work permits to millions of illegal immigrants at a time of record joblessness, it would also double the annual flow of new immigrant workers and provide green cards to more than 30 million permanent residents over the next decade. These new workers, mostly lesser-skilled, will compete for jobs in every sector, industry, and occupation in the U.S. economy.”

While these voters will be democratic – most of them – the GOP is rushing headlong into legalization of some sort.  Why would they do this to themselves?  The answer lies in the special interests who own the GOP.  You see, if there are entitled special interests on the low end of the income spectrum who own the Democrats (or whom are themselves owned by the Democrats), the GOP is the same, just on the high end.

Corporate interests are pressing for this legalization and for more green cards.  The reason is simple.  It amounts to corporate welfare.  The low income paid to immigrant workers doesn’t afford them the ability to purchase good health insurance or good automobile insurance (and sometimes any insurance at all), doesn’t afford them the ability to eat well, and so on.  We pick up the tab with food stamps, uninsured motorists coverage, additional health insurance premiums, and on and on the list goes.

The windfall goes into the pockets of the powerful in the corporate world so that they can have their boats, expensive cars, homes at the beach, and all of their other largesse.  The GOP is so beholden to corporate interests that, just like a drug user who simply wants to mainline heroin one more time as demanded by their addiction, they are willing to destroy the party and any hope of recapturing the government so that they can get their next fix.  Because it feels good.

That’s why Roger Simon’s solution is no solution at all.  John Boehner said that he has learned to deal with “every Jackass that walks through the door.”  Says the lead Jackass of a herd of Jackasses.