migrant crisis

Borderless: imperative in one case; utter nonsense in another

Brian Casey Ancient Israel, Politics, Zionism , , ,

The U.S. southern border is a problem, and most people with open eyes have been aware of that for quite some time.  I do not presume to address, and surely cannot solve, the whole problem in this essay.  I do however herein assert the logical impropriety of the appeals to Jesus when discussing the U.S.’s border policies and practices viz. migrants.

Hope And Despair In Del Rio As Biden Administration Begins Expelling Migrants From Massive Border Encampment | TPR
Migrants in a camp near the U.S. southern border

The USA cannot be borderless, or it will cease to be a country.  Furthermore, if a country’s borders are not clear, there is more likelihood of a multiplicity of concerns.¹

God’s kingdom, on the other hand, is conceptually borderless.  (The physical aspect doesn’t enter the spiritual picture.  This assertion is supported by numerous scriptural texts of both Hebrew and Christian collections.)

Digging into history a bit, I would state this:  there has always been a non-mappable reality of the “area” of God’s eternal reign and rule; however, the present iteration of God’s kingdom must be in some respects distinguished from the kingdom(s) of Israel before Jesus.  During the time of ancient Israel’s kings (which involved an inherently conflicted reality, in that God’s kingship was compromised), there was clearly a different sense of “kingdom.”  Boundaries might not always have been clear, but they existed.  Even during the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, a sense of geographical homeland seems to have persisted.  Yet beyond the land of Israel, God never ceased to be King.

Today, in contrast to pre-Jesus time, God’s kingdom “borders” are conceived of differently.  There are now no physical borders that may really enter a conversation about God’s kingdom.  It is spiritual/conceptual in nature.  The border-vs.-no-border distinction is one consideration that ought to keep thoughtful Christians from devolving into Christian nationalism associated with a country.

N.B.  There are two types of kingdoms (and never the twain shall fully meet, although they may be related at points).  One is geopolitical, such as the modern state of Israel, whereas the constitution of other type is conceptual and spiritual.  See here and here for some thoughts on the modern, bordered Israeli state vis-à-vis “the Jews.”  

In reporting on the rather obvious border crisis, so-called liberal pundits have tended² to use the term “migrant,” and such commentators also downplay—at least, until recently—legalities, practicalities, and the country’s need to have and to secure its physical border.  The beautiful “give me your tired, your poor” notion cannot be the U.S.A.’s mantra in a time such as the present:  threats related to the (2) influx of drugs and (2) massive infiltration by enemy populations constitute real and present dangers to a geopolitically defined country.  Moreover, the sheer numbers of illegal immigrants overwhelm everyone involved, sometimes causing inter-state feuding over methodologies and the provision of basic shelter for illegals already inside the country.  Self-proclaimed “sanctuary cities” such as NYC are experiencing overload, leading even to intra-party fighting.

On the contrary, when conservative commentators opine on the border crisis, words like “alien” and “illegal” tend to be used more frequently, and the obvious failures of President Biden, his border chief, and other staff members³ are in evidence.  If I didn’t know better, I’d think the influx is being orchestrated in order to give the Democratic party another win in 2024.  I no longer care too much if I manifest increasingly “conservative” leanings on this question and others.  Some things just make sense, and others don’t.  Although I would never defend a country’s border myself, I can see clearly that a country needs a sense of sovereignty over its territory; to suppose otherwise is nonsense, whether it’s liberal or progressive or not.

So what does a Christian do, if anything?  How should a Christian feel about (1) migrants and (2) the migrant crisis?  (These items are distinct.)

In 2005, I went to UNC in Greeley, CO as a graduate student.  The population of the city included many Hispanics, and I learned a few things about that subculture.  I didn’t have much of a sense of the (comparatively minor) migrant/immigration issues then, although I did hear speculation that some of the Spanish-speaking Christians who met, mostly separately, in our church building could very well have been in the country illegally.  My general sense then was that those Christians looked the other way, not getting into the business of who was legal and who wasn’t, because our calling was to the spiritual needs, not to be national “gatekeepers.”  (These are my words in hindsight, not the words of anyone there at the time.)  These days, I wonder how things are in Greeley.  I could ask, because I still count three or four families there as friends.  But I’m a little afraid to ask, because there is an inevitable conflict at the intersection of (1) U.S.A. laws and concerns and (2) living for God and being King Jesus’s emissary in this land.  The practice of abetting illegal action cannot be upheld; however, for a Christ-oriented person faced with an human need, conflicted feelings can easily arise.

The conundrum can be relieved somewhat, though, by distinguishing between human government and God’s kingship in the life of an individual.

A political party will feel called upon to set a policy, to speak, to write, and to encourage constituents to act and feel in certain ways.  A denomination or institutional church might do the same.  (This similarity speaks volumes about the problem with institutional church!)

An individual, on the other hand, when dealing with another individual, should take cues from the Master.  Feeding the hungry?  Yes, if you (sg.) need some food, I will try to get it for you, or I’ll share some of mine.  If you (sg.) need a ride, I’ll provide it.  If you need a bed, I have a sort-of guest room.  Imprisoned?  It gets complicated there, because the detention centers and the asylum processing system are so vastly, incorrigibly overrun that it’s ridiculous.  And all these needs of individuals quickly become overwhelming, massive plurals.

Now that I think about it, within the last week, I’ve had two opportunities to help other individuals.  In one case, I found out that no help was really needed.  In another case, I helped.  If I lived in a southern border state, and if an illegal, undocumented, migrant alien knocked on my door and needed food, I would help, and I might even hide the person in my house until a legal, safe path forward could be found.

A country, though, cannot allow teeming masses of people to cross its borders unfettered.  Nor can it refuse to act on policy enacted in the name of order and to keep such mass immigration from occurring.  A country should not and cannot be held to Jesus’ standard (Matt. 25 and other texts).  A country has borders and has the right to do large-scale things to ensure those borders are respected.  An individual, or an individual family, in need of mercy and provision would get it from me, if I could provide it.  In so doing, I would be acting as a member of the “royal priesthood, the holy nation” (1 Peter).  But a nation-state is bound to no such ethic, and in reality, if it acts that way on a grand scale, it is compromising itself and ignoring its very nature.

¹ Of course, borders and border security are not the only concerns.  Not by any stretch.  To name a few others:

    • endless wrangling and corruption in government officials at all levels
  • justified distrust of legal officials and legal processes
  • inflation and other economic factors
  • pharmaceutical, technological, and news media clout
  • ideological extremes and polarizations

² Of late, it seems that even the most ardent supporters of the Biden administration are seeing the serious issues, as well as the lies at points.  Still, their preconceptions and vantage points will affect their vocabulary choices.

³ President Biden’s press secretary, dubbed “Karine Jean-Identity-Hire” by brilliant humorist/author Andrew Klavan, seems to be either patently unintelligent or a pathological liar, based on certain statements and non-statements on this topic.

Postscript (because I really don’t want to save this material and write another full post on this):

President Biden was asked whether he considered there to be a crisis at the southern border.  Biden responded somewhat confusingly, and if I didn’t know better, I’d think he first said the word “no” because it’s a conditioned, reflexive response, not because he knows or means what he says on this topic.  He “shifted blame for the situation to Republicans.”  That, readers, is certainly delusional or childish.

 

 

Truly, how childish it is for the federal government to spend money, time, and effort to stop states from doing what the feds should have done in the first place.  Rather, the feds should abjectly apologize, say “thank you” to TX and AZ, and continue what the states had to do on their own.
I was in Eagle Pass, Texas once.  I could be mixing that location up with another on the border, but, from some high school’s marching band’s practice field, my cell phone once showed the message “Welcome to Mexico” (although I was still in TX).  Some of the most respectful, motivated students in my history came from South Texas.  I care about people there, and about people in general, but I cannot support the idea that allowing unhinged immigration is the right pathway.  I believe Texas should be doing everything they can to take care of things that the U.S. forces are not properly taking care of.