On Immigration:

On Immigration:

1) A Christian Perspective:

Christians should relate and sympathize with immigrants. Scripture describes us as such in that we are merely immigrants/sojourners in this world while our real home is in heaven. Hebrews 11 is a good read on that and the connection between Christianity and Judaism. But here are a few selections:

By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.
(Hebrews 11:9-10 ESV)

But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.
(Hebrews 11:16 ESV)

There are also many verses about caring for the travelers and needy. So, every christian personally, and every church broadly, should seek to show love, compassion, and justice to all immigrants. That is indisputable. What is a bit more disputable is exactly what is most loving, compassionate, and just. (Do note that it is individuals and voluntary religious organizations that bear this responsibility, not the secular government, but that is a much bigger issue.)

2) A Justice Perspective:

We have too many laws for anyone to enforce. This leads to contempt for the law as well as confusion about what is or isn’t going to get one in trouble. Also, those in charge of enforcing the law become de facto judges by choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore. In regards to immigration and illegal immigration this is an important factor that is often ignored in the discussion. While deporting those who are here illegally may seem unjust, it is more unjust to reward them for breaking the law while those who have tried to come over legally are still left jumping through our government’s cumbersome process. Therefore, we need to enforce the laws we have and change the one’s we disagree with, simple as that. But until a law is changed, refusing to enforce it is blatant contempt of our justice system.

It is logically inconsistent to oppose both open borders and a heavily fortified border to actually keep the border from being open.

So rather than seeing the right wing wall builders as racist, i simply see them as being logically consistent (in that regard) and committed to practically carrying out their ideolgy (regulate & control the border) while having a high regard for the laws of the land. I disagree with the statist ideology, but at least they are being consistent.

Alternatively, the left wing, wall ridiculers that don’t support open borders sound compassionate but are ultimately ideologically inconsistent and show contempt for the laws of the land by opposing their enforcement. Do you want open borders? If not, why are you opposed to a wall, fence, or legitimate ways to prevent border jumping?

3) An Economic Perspective:

If you support open borders, how do you suppose that we care for the inevitable influx of consumers who do not produce or abuse the system? Just take more of other people’s money? Tighten other regulations and civil liberties?

If you support personal freedoms and a free market economy then how is an immigrant a threat to the economy?

Free market capitalism and libertarianism are the most friendly to all types of immigration, especially open borders. The stereotypical anti immigration complaint of one who does not understand how a free market operates could be summed up best by this: “Day took arr jerbs!” They are concerned that an influx of workers will saturate the market and make their own labor less valuable. They are both right and wrong. That is because any new person that comes in and provides cheap labor will therefore be providing a beneficial service to a community or individual. If they can provide the same service at a cheaper rate because they are willing to be more frugal, then they deserve the business. It is then on the native to provide either a cheaper or better quality service. Libertarianism doesn’t care where you are from, whoever can best meet the need is who most deserves the work. It is a simple system in which the benefits you receive in a community (money and whatever you wish to spend it on) is directly proportional to the benefit that you contribute to the community. So, unless someone (family, non-prof, church, etc.) voluntarily gives them things, someone cannot be  a consumer without also being a producer in a true free market economy.

This is not the case with socialism or any level of welfare state. Since consumers are not required to produce anything, immigration (and other things) must be regulated so that the system isn’t overwhelmed by consumers without enough producers to support them. Open borders would never be possible with socialism because people could simply partake of the benefits on one side of the border (Education, healthcare, food, etc.) while avoiding the consequences on the other side of the border. (Taxes, regulations, etc.)
Therefore, a true libertarian will support open borders and is the only one who can logically and sustainably do so. If you don’t support open borders then you don’t truly believe in a free market...unless your concern is with security.

4) A Security Perspective:

I confess that i do not have this one worked out yet. However, i lean heavily  toward letting anyone in and if they are caught committing a crime then prosecute them. Simple as that. I am very much opposed to punishing people who have committed no crime regardless of their religion (Muslims today), race (Japanese internment camps in the 40’s), or anything else (gender, sexual preference, etc.) However, i do sympathize with those who want higher restrictions against countries with a history of violence against the U.S. I believe this is a big issue even with friendly countries. If someone from an anti American country can make it to Mexico or an EU country then they can enter as an EU migrant rather than one from their original country and avoid a lot of scrutiny. So, that complicates things and i’m not quite sure what the best course of action is. In that case the emphasis is logical discretion rather than blind bigotry and we should be careful to understand the difference. Of course all of this is exacerbated by our disastrous foreign policies, but that is a whole other bag of related worms.

In Summary:

I disagree with the Left that either thinks we can sustain a non-open border policy without drastic measures (such as a wall) or that thinks we can sustain an open border policy while increasing government based welfare and control. I also disagree with the Right that pays lip service to personal freedom and capitalism while also insisting that the government must intervene or deny other’s freedoms in order to protect one’s jobs or freedoms. Therefore, i hold to a libertarian view that understands that freedom of movement should be equal for everyone and that this can only occur in a free & voluntary society and economy.

Which brings me back to the most important point. How we as individuals interact personally is incomparably more important and impactful than any vote we will ever cast.  Regardless of one’s social, political, economic, or religious views, we should voluntarily respect and care for the immigrants in our community.

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

(Philippians 2:3-8 ESV)